OF  THE 

U N 1 VLRS  ITY 
Of  ILLI  NOI5 


332.1 
G6^  i 

1313 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 


m 1 3 198(1 


4'  i 


THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON 
OF  GOD 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Iliinois  Urbana-Champaign  Aiternates 


/ 

( 

i 


https;//archive.org/details/incarnationofson00gore_0 


THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE 
SON  OF  GOD 


BEING 

THE  BAMPTON  LECTURES 

FOR  THE  YEAR  iSgi 


BY 

CHARLES  GORE,  M.A. 

Principal  of  Pusey  House;  Fellow  of  Trinity 
College,  Oxford 


Tm  ad  liberandum  suscepturus  hominem  non 
horruisti  Virginis  uierum 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1912 


COPYRIGHT,  1891,  BY 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 


ff  fi  ht 


i) 

\L 


EXTRACT 

FROM  THE  LAST  WILL  AND  TESTAMENT 

-f  - OF  THE  LATE 

p REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON, 

CANON  OF  SALISBURY. 

«I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to  the 

Chancellor,  Masters,  and  Scholars  of  the  University  of  Oxford 
for  ever,  to  have  and  to  hold  all  and  singular  the  said  Lands  or 
“ Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the  intents  and  purposes  hereinafter 
“ mentioned ; that  is  to  say,  I will  and  appoint  that  the  Vice- 
“ Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Oxford  for  the  time  being  shall 
“ take  and  receive  all  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof,  and 
“ (after  all  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary  deductions  made) 
‘‘  that  he  pay  all  the  remainder  to  the  endowment  of  eight 
“ Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  to  be  established  for  ever  in  the 
“ said  University,  and  to  be  performed  in  the  manner  following : 

“ I direct  and  appoint,  that,  upon  the  first  Tuesday  in  Easter 
“ Term,  a Lecturer  may  be  yearly  chosen  by  the  Heads  of  Col- 
" “ leges  only,  and  by  no  others,  in  the  room  adjoining  to  the 
o « Printing-House,  between  the  hours  of  ten  in  the  morning  and 
“ two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach  eight  Divinity  Lecture 
*5'  ‘‘  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at  St.  Mary’s  in  Oxford,  between 
the  commencement  of  the  last  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the 
end  of  the  third  week  in  Act  Term. 

Also  I direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity  Lecture 
Sermons  shall  be  preached  upon  either  of  the  following 


V 


VI 


KEV.  JOHN  BAMPTON’s  WILL. 


“Subjects — to  confirm  and  establish  the  Christian  Faith,  and 
“to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics — upon  the  divine  / 
authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures — upon  the  authority  of  the 
“ writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  as  to  the  faith  and  practice 
‘‘  of  the  primitive  Church — upon  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and 
‘‘  Saviour  Jesus  Christ — upon  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost — 

“ upon  the  Articles  of  the  Christian  Faith,  as  comprehended  in 
the  Apostles*  and  Mcene  Creed. 

“ Also  I direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity  Lec- 
“ ture  Sermons  shall  be  always  printed,  within  two  months  after 
they  are  preached ; and  one  copy  shall  be  given  to  the  Chan- 
‘‘  cellor  of  the  University,  and  one  copy  to  the  head  of  every 
“ College,  and  one  copy  to  the  mayor  of  the  city  of  Oxford,  and 
“ one  copy  to  be  put  into  the  Bodleian  Library ; and  the 
“ expense  of  printing  them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  of 
“ the  Land  or  Estates  given  for  establishing  the  Divinity  Lecture 
“ Sermons  ; and  the  Preacher  shall  not  be  paid,  nor  be  entitled 
to  the  revenue,  before  they  are  printed. 

“ Also  I direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shall  be  qualified 
‘‘  to  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  unless  he  hath  taken 
“ the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  least,  in  one  of  the  two  Uni- 
“ versities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge  ; and  that  the  same  person 
‘‘  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons  twice.** 


PKEFACE. 


Bampton  Lectures  are  addressed  necessarily,  at 
least  in  modern  Oxford,  to  a general  rather  than  to  a 
specially  theological  audience.  It  is  natural  there- 
fore to  endeavour  to  keep  within  limits  the  discussion 
of  points  of  technical  theology. 

Thus  in  the  present  volume  of  lectures  — which 
are  printed  as  they  were  delivered,  with  not  more 
than  verbal  changes  and  occasional  expansions  — I 
aim  at  presenting  the  subject  of  the  Incarnation  rather 
to  the  general  reader  than  to  the  professed  theologi- 
cal student;  and  I hope  to  have  the  opportunity  of 
preparing  another  volume  which  shall  appeal  to  a 
more  strictly  theological  public,  and  deal  with  some 
subjects  which  are  necessarily  alluded  to  rather  than, 
discussed  in  these  pages,  such  for  example  as  — 

(1)  The  conception  entertained  in  early  Greek 
theology  of  the  supernatural  in  its  relation  to  nature 
(see  pp.  44-47  and  notes). 

(2)  The  relation  of  Ebionism  and  Gnosticism  to 
the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  and  of  the  2nd 
century  (pp.  91-96  and  notes). 

vii 


PKEFACE. 


viii 

(3)  The  conception  of  the  Incarnation  at  different 
epochs,  patristic  (p.  177  and  note),  early  mediaeval 
(pp.  177-9),  later  scholastic  (pp.  164-5).  This  is 
said,  however,  only  to  explain  what  would  otherwise 
appear  to  be  the  deficiency  in  the  annotation  to  these 
lectures,  not  in  any  way  to  depreciate  the  criticism  of 
theological  experts  on  anything  that  is  contained  in 
them. 

It  is  my  hope  that  these  lectures  express  through- 
out the  same  intellectual  principle:  — the  principle 
namely  that  all  right  theory  emerges  out  of  experi- 
ence, and  is  the  analysis  of  experience:  that  the 
right  method  of  philosophy  is  not  d priori,  abstract, 
or  external,  but  is  based  in  each  department  of 
inquiry  upon  a profound  and  sympathetic  study  of 
the  facts. 

As  Christians  of  course  we  desire  that  the  moral 
and  spiritual  facts,  with  which  our  religious  life  is 
bound  up,  should  be  appreciated  as  from  within, 
before  they  are  criticised ; and  should  be  allowed  fair 
opportunity  to  tell  their  own  tale,  and  justify  their 
claims  at  the  bar  of  reason  by  their  power  to  inter- 
pret and  deal  with  experience  as  a whole.  But  it  is 
not  only  in  the  case  of  critics  of  Christianity  that 
we  have  occasion  to  deprecate  the  abstract,  external, 
d priori  method.  Within  the  area  of  Christianity 
this  false  method  is  frequently  intruding  itself. 


PEBFACE. 


ix 


Thus  in  current  discussions  as  to  the  nature  of 
religious  authority  it  is  remarkable  how  seldom  the 
appeal  is  made  to  the  actual  method  of  our  Lord, 
and  how  small  is  the -force  allowed  to  indisputable 
facts  of  Church  history  in  limiting  and  conditioning 
abstract  general  statements.  And  in  the  highest 
subject  of  all,  the  doctrine  of  the  being  of  God, 
abstract  statements  of  the  divine  attributes  — infinity, 
omnipotence,  immutability  — frequently  takes  the 
place  of  a careful  estimate  of  what  God  has  actually 
manifested  of  Himself  in  nature  and  conscience  and 
Christ.  The  religion  of  the  Incarnation  is  pre-emi- 
nently a religion  of  experience  and  fact.  We  know 
what  God  has  revealed  of  Himself  in  the  order  of  the 
world,  in  the  conscience  of  men  in  general,  by  the 
inspired  wisdom  of  His  prophets,  and  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ ; and  the  best  theology  is  that  which  is 
moulded,  as  simply  and  as  closely  as  may  be,  upon 
what  has  actually  been  disclosed. 

I am  at  a loss  in  expressing  my  obligation  to  others 
in  the  preparation  of  these  lectures : in  part  because 
it  is  indirect:  in  part  because  it  is  obligation  to  so 
many  persons.  My  indirect  obligations  to  many 
writers  will  be  apparent ; not  least  to  the  writers  of 
Essays  i,  ii,  v,  vi,  in  Lux  Mundi.  I have  contracted 
obligations  to  many  persons,  because  the  common 
enemy,  the  influenza,  made  it  necessary  for  me  to 


X 


PKEFACB. 


prepare  these  lectures  for  press  at  a distance  from 
libraries  and  thus  made  me  dependent  upon  much 
external  assistance,  which  I can  only  gratefully 
acknowledge. 

Wimbledon, 

JSL  Bartholomew's  Day^  1891. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS, 


LECTUKE  1. 

WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 

PAGE 


Christianity  is  absolute  faith  in  a certain  Person,  Jesus  Christ  . 1 

I.  It  loses  its  character  where  the  relationship  to  a Person  is 

obscured  : as  by  — 

(1)  false  ecclesiasticism 2 

(2)  exaggerated  devotion  to  Mary  . . • . 3-4 

(3)  protestant  subjectivism 4-5 

(4)  un theological  philanthropy  . • • • • 5 

(5)  academic  intellectualism 5-6 

Summary  account  of  Christianity  by  St.  Paul,  &c.  . . 7 

II.  Christianity  distinguished  from  other  religions  by  the  posi- 

tion which  the  Person  of  Jesus  holds  in  it  — 

(1)  from  Mohammedanism : position  of  Mohammed 

in  Islam 7-3 

(2)  from  Buddhism  : position  of  Gautama  in 

Buddhism 8-10 

III.  The  position  assigned  to  Jesus  Christ  accounted  for  by  His 
Personality  and  claim  as  described  in  the  Synoptic 


Gospels 10-17 

The  dilemma : “ aut  Deus  aut  homo  non  bonus  • • 17-18 

IV.  Christianity  is  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  incarnate  God  . . 17 

These  lectures  are  — 

(1)  a vindication  of  the  rationality  of  this  faith  . 19 

(2)  an  exposition  of  its  meaning  or  content  . . 19-22 

V.  These  lectures  will  involve  theological,  or  metaphysical, 

propositions 22 

xi 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS. 


xii 


Such  propositions  are  — 

(1)  the  necessary  result  of  any  attempt  to  give  a 

rational  account  of  the  Christian’s  relation  to 
Jesus  Christ 

(2)  the  inevitable  background  of  ‘‘  the  Gospel  ” 

(3)  involved  in  the  claim  of  moral  lordship  made 

for  Christ 

(4)  established  dogmas  to  which  the  Christian 

Church  is  committed 

The  effect  of  these  considerations  on  our  inquiry  • . 


LECTURE  11. 

CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL. 

Christ  a supernatural  person.  Is  He  in  harmony  with  nature, 
which  is  admitted  to  be  a work  and  word  of  God  ? 

I.  Reasons  for  interpreting  nature  spiritually,  not  material- 

istically : these  grounds  assumed 

II.  Nature  a progressive  revelation  of  God  culminating  in 

Christ 

The  order  of  nature  incomplete  without  Him,  because  of 
its  inadequate  disclosure  of  the  moral  character  of 
God  ........... 

Christ  is  thus  ‘ ‘ supernatural  ” from  the  point  of  view  of  an 
incomplete  nature,  as  moral  nature  is  “ supernatural  ” 
from  the  point  of  view  of  what  is  merely  physical 

III.  Christ  not  only  the  consummation  of  nature,  but  also  its 

restoration,  in  view  of  the  ravages  of  sin  ... 
The  sense  of  sin,  and  the  accompanying  moral  desire,  the 
condition  for  recognizing  the  naturalness  of  the  Christ . 
The  possibility  of  losing  moral  sensibility,  and  the  condi- 
tions of  its  vigorous  action 

IV.  Answer  to  objection  (1).  The  unity  of  nature  and  grace 

recognized  in  the  best  theology  — 

in  New  Testament 

in  Fathers 

V.  Answer  to  objection  (2).  Miracles  not  a violation  of 
nature,  but  vindications  of  its  true,  divine,  order ; when 
that  had  been  obscured  by  sin 


PAGS 

23-25 

25- 26 

26- 28 

28- 29 

29- 31 


32-33 

34-36 

36- 37 

37- 38 

39 

40 
40-41 
41^4 

45 

46-48 

48-51 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS, 


xiii 


PAGE 

Probable  and  improbable  miracles 51-52 

Miracles  in  the  case  of  Christ  the  natural  phenomena  of 
His  unexampled  nature,  as  nature  on  each  new  level 
exhibits  new  phenomena 52-55 

VI.  Answer  to  objection  (3).  Christ,  as  son  of  God  incarnate, 

necessarily  unique : but  also  He  originates  a new  type  . 55-57 
Summary 58 


LECTURE  III. 

THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL. 

I.  The  conditions  for  accepting  the  Christian  evidences  . . 59-60 

Undue  subjectiveness  in  estimate  of  evidence  . . . 60-62 

Christian  conviction  rests  on  (1)  faith,  (2)  evidence  . • 62-63 

II.  Historical  grounds  (A).  The  witness  of  St.  Paul’s  central 

Epistles 64-66 

They  witness  to  points  agreed  upon  between  St.  Paul  and 

the  Judaists 67-68 

III.  Historical  Grounds  (B).  The  fundamental  Gospel,  as  repre- 

sented in  St.  Mark 68-69 

(1)  its  trustworthiness 69-70 

(2)  it  represents  the  teaching  of  Peter  . . . 70-72 

The  Christ  it  presents,  the  Christ  of  the  Apostles*  Creed  . 72-73 

IV.  Historical  Grounds  (C) . St.  Luke’s  preface  • • • 73-74 

V.  Historical  Grounds  (D).  St.  John’s  Gospel  . • • • 74-75 


The  term  “ Logos  ” 75-76 

St.  John  witness 76-77 

especially  in  the  discourses 77-78 

his  witness  to  our  Lord’s  assertions  of  His  own  pre- 
existence   78 

corroborated  by  St.  Paul  and  the  Synoptists  . . . 78-79 

Summary 80 

VI.  The  trustworthy  character  of  the  apostolic  witnesses  . . 82-84 

VII.  The  historical  sources  of  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin-birth . 84-86 
Conclusion  •••••••••••  86-87 


XIV 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  IV. 


THE  CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE, 


The  dogmatic  definitions  of  the  Church 

I.  Their  substance : and  the  views  taken  of  them  . 

(1)  the  ancient  and  Anglican 

(2)  the  ultramontane 

(3)  the  neologistic 

II.  The  first  Christians  really  possessed  a theology,  and  a 

“ rule  of  faith  ” ...  o ...  . 

The  process  which  connected  this  faith  of  the  first  Chris- 
tians with  the  faith  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Councils 
Intellectual  interest  of  this  process  two-fold  — 

(1)  a corporate  consciousness  taking  shape  . 

(2)  the  via  media  emerging 

III.  The  dogmatic  decisions  more  exactly  considered  — 

(1)  against  Arius 

(2)  against  Apollinarius  

(3)  against  Nestorius 

(4)  against  Eutyches 

Summary  in  ‘ ‘ Athanasian  Creed  ” 

IV.  These  decisions  protect,  without  addition,  the  faith  of 

the  apostles 

Development  within  the  New  Testament  .... 
The  final  language  of  the  apostles  justifies  and  renders 

necessary  the  conciliar  decisions 

What  the  Church  borrowed  from  Greek  philosophy  was 
not  the  substance  of  her  creed,  but  the  terminology  . 
Further  reservation  fn  regard  to  personality 

V.  Permanence  of  Catholic  dogmas.  Their  value  because 

ancient 

Nothing  in  them  which  renders  them  liable  to  be  super- 
annuated   

But  not  strictly  “ adequate  to  the  truths  they  express  . 

VI.  The  functions  of  these  dogmatic  decisions  limited  . 

(1)  they  are  negative,  rather  than  positive;  guides 

to  the  Gospels  not  substitutes  for  them 
misuse  of  dogma  in  scholastic  method 

(2)  they  were  justified  only  by  necessity:  the 

fewer  necessary,  the  better  for  the  Church  . 


PAGB 


88 

88-89 


89-91 

91-93 

93-95 

95- 96 

96- 97 

08-101 

lCi-102 

102-104 

104 

104- 105 

105 

105- 106 

106- 108 

108-111 

111 

111-113 

113-114 

115 

116 

116- 117 

117- 118 

118- 120 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS.  XY 

(3)  the  appeal  of  the  Church  not  to  logic ; but  its 

implied  logic  deeper  than  that  of  the  heretics  120 

Limits  to  the  power  of  logic  in  apprehending  the  self- 

sacrihce  of  the  Incarnation 121-122 

LECTURE  V. 

GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 

Christ  the  manifestation  of  the  Father  • • . • . 123 

I.  The  bearing  upon  this  truth  ■— 

(1)  of  the  Nicene  dogma 124-125 

(2)  of  Hansel’s  apologetics 125-127 

IL  The  substance  of  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ  — 

(1)  His  personality 127-129 

(2)  His  love 129-130 

This  revelation  bound  up  with  Christ’s  Godhead  and 

Resurrection 130-132 

(3)  His  justice  and  truth 132-135 

The  possibility  of  eternal  sin 135 

III.  God  works  in  accordance  with  law  in  spiritual  matters  . 135-139 

as  in  Christ,  so  in  the  Church 139 

so  in  the  Old  Testament 139-140 

so  in  Nature 140 

God’s  very  Being  involves  law 140-142 

IV.  God’s  triune 'Being  disclosed  in  Christ  . • • . 142-144 

The  dogma  of  the  Trinity  based  on  experience  • • • 144-145 

In  what  scnic  it  is  rational 145-148 

The  harmony  of  pantheism  and  deism  • • • • 148-150 

V.  The  results  of  belief  in  God  — 

(1)  worship 150-152 

(2)  confidence • • 152-153 

LECTURE  VI. 

MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 

Christ  the  revelation  of  manhood 154 

I.  The  truth  safe-guarded  in  dogma,  but  sometimes  ob- 
scured in  fact  154-156 

The  causes  of  this • 156-157 


XVI 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS, 


II.  The  pictures  of  Christ’s  human  condition  as  given  in  the 

New  Testament 157-159 

Limitation  of  knowledge , 160-163 

III.  Fidelity  to  the  Gospel  narrative  causes  us  to  part  com- 

pany, in  part,  with  — 

(1)  later  scholastic  dogmatists  (De  Lugo)  • . 163-166 

(2)  recent  asserters  of  our  Lord’s  fallibility  and 

peccability 166-167 

IV.  The  double  life  of  infallible  authority  and  of  human  lim- 

itation finds  analogy  in  the  prophets  (Jeremiah)  • 167-168 
It  is  harmonized  by  considering  — 

(1)  the  motive  of  the  Incarnation  . . ' . . 169-170 

(2)  its  method,  as  conceived  by  St.  Paul . » • 170-171 

This  self-emptying”  no  dishonouring  of  God  • • • 171-173 

In  part  intelligible 173-175 

V.  Summary 176-177 

Patristic  supports : patristic  and  mediaeval  repudiation  • 177-178 
Question  not  fully  faced  in  ancient  days  • • • • 179 

VI.  Christ  the  Son  of  man.  His  humanity  unlike  ours,  be- 
cause — 

(1)  sinless  and  perfectly  free 179-181 

(2)  perfectly  developed 181-182 

(3)  Catholic 182-185 

Summary  185-186 

LECTURE  Vn. 

CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 

Christ  the  summary  authority  in  religion  • • • • • 187 

I.  The  authoritative  method  of  our  Lord,  contrasted  with 

that  of  Socrates  or  Plato  ••••••  187-189 

II.  Christianity  authoritative  — 

as  an  educational  system  ••••••  190-191 

as  a revelation  of  God 191-192 

Authority  is  either  (1)  despotic,  or  (2)  fatherly  • • 192-193 

(1)  represents  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  (2)  that 

of  the  New  Testament 193 


SYNOPSIS  OP  CONTENTS. 


xvii 


Moderation  of  Christ’s  authority  — 

in  range • • • 193-194: 

in  method • • • 194r-196 

Characteristics  of  Christian,  or  paternal,  authority . • 196-198 


III,  The  Anglican  ideal  of  authority  explained  and  justified  198-200 

Contrasted  with  that  of  Rome 200-202 

IV,  The  seat  of  Christian  authority  in  the  Church  and  the 

Bible 202-203 

That  is  to  say  our  authority  is  from  Christ  as  interpreted 

by  the  inspired  apostles 203 

Who  — 

(1)  instructed  the  Churches 204 

(2)  provided  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  . . 204r-205 

The  Scriptures  the  permanent  criterion  of  the  Church’s 

teaching 205-207 

V.  The  Old  Testament  also  recognized  as  authoritative  by 

our  Lord 207 

(1)  as  God’s  word  to  the  Jews 208-210 

(2)  as  God’s  word  also  for  all  Christians  . . 210-211 

This  does  not  necessarily  involve  acceptance  of  Jewish 

literary  tradition 211-212 

E.g.  David’s  authorship  of  Ps.  cx,  not  a matter  of  neces- 
sary faith 212-213 

In  His  allusion  to  that  psalm  our  Lord  is  questioning  and 

not  teaching 213-215 

He  teaches  only  “ the  words  of  God,”  but  He  questions 

men  as  to  their  use  of  human  reasonings  • . • 215-216 

Human  reasonings  and  divine  faith  . • • • • 216-218 


LECTURE  Vm. 

CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE. 


I,  Christ  our  example  by  exhibition  of  character  . • . 219 

What  rules  of  conduct  He  enunciates  have  to  be  inter- 
preted in  their  principle 226 

But  not  explained  away 220-221 

Christ’s  example  exacting 221-223 


xyiii  SYNOPSIS  of  contents. 


II,  Christ  deliberately  refused  to  appeal  to  the  **  average 

man  ** 

Contrast  with  Mohammed 

False  methods  of  diffusion,  which  have  weakened  Chris- 
tianity — 

(1)  wholesale  conversions  (Frankish)  . 

(2)  minimizing  of  the  moral,  by  the  side  of  the 

ecclesiastical,  claim  (Jesuits) 

(3)  identification  of  the  Church  with  the  nation 

(Anglican) 

Result  from  such  methods,  that  the  moral  obligations  of 
Christianity,  e.g.  its  social  obligations,  are  ignored  , 
Need  for  a clear  understanding  of  the  theological  and 
moral  requirements  of  the  Church,  and  a revival  of 

discipline 

Christ’s  moral  claim,  once  made,  permanent  . 

III,  Is  the  Christian  standard  practicable  ? , , . • 

Christianity  not  only  proclaims  the  standard  but  also 

supplies  the  means  for  its  realization  . , , , 

The  doctrine  of  the  “new  birth  “ Christ  in  us by 

His  Spirit 

The  Church  the  “ extension  of  the  incarnation  ”, 

IV.  The  indwelling  of  Christ  in  His  people  interprets  — 

(1)  the  value  of  His  external  example  . 

(2)  the  imputation  to  us  of  His  merits  , 

(3)  the  function  of  faith  inside  the  Christian  life 

in  its  relation  to  the  Sacraments  , 

V.  Summary  of  lectures.  Conclusion 


APPENDED  NOTES. 

LECTURE  I. 

Note  1.  This  is  the  true  God^*  ,•.... 

2.  Exaggerated  devotion  to  Mary 

3.  The  place  of  Mohammed  and  of  the  Koran  in  Islam 

4.  The  place  of  Gautama  in  Buddhism  . . . 


PAGB 

223 

224- 225 

225- 226 

226- 227 

227- 228 

228- 230 

230- 231 

231- 233 

233- 234 

234- 235 

235- 237 
237-239 

240-242 

242-245 

245-248 

248-251 


. 253 
. 253 
. 255 
. 256 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS.  xix 

PA62 

Note  6.  Aut  Deus  aut  homo  non  bonus  ” 257 

6.  Pharisaic  Eb  ionites 258 

7.  The  need  of  a clear  moral  ideal 259 


LECTURE  IL 

Note  8.  The  common  ground  of  science  and  Christianity  in  a 

belief  in  nature 260 

9.  Mind,  from  the  point  of  view  of  merely  physical 

science 261 

10.  Theistic  arguments 262 

11.  Moral  life  supernatural** 263 

12.  Mi\  Darwin* s account  of  his  own  mind  ....  263 

13.  The  unity  of  nature  **  and  grace  **  in  the  best  The- 

ology 264 

14.  The  rationale  of  miracles 265 

16.  Prof,  Huxley  on  scientific  objections  to  Christianity  . 266 

LECTURE  III. 

Note  16.  Hume*s  **  Canon  ** 267 

17.  A priori**  tendencies  in  Dr,  Martineau  and  Cardi- 

nal Newman 267 

18.  The  witness  of  St,  PauVs  Epistles 268 

19.  Synoptic  Gospels 269 

20.  St.  John*s  Gospel 269 

21.  The  Logos** 269 

22.  Our  Lord*s  discourses  in  St.  John 270 

23.  The  apostles  as  witnesses 270 

24.  The  narratives  of  the  Nativity  and  Infancy  • • • 271 


LECTURE  IV. 

Note  25.  The  relation  of  dogma  to  original  Christianity  . . 272 

26.  The  theology  of  the  New  Testament  ....  274 

27.  Subapostolic  writers 276 


XX 


SYNOPSIS  OP  CONTENTS. 


PA6S 

Note  28.  The  formula  of  Chalcedon 277 

29.  Theological  confusion  in  period  of  councils  • • , 278 

30.  The  via  media** , , 278 

31.  Dogmatic  passages  in  the  New  Testament  • • • 278 

32.  Christ* s permanent  manhood  ••••••  279 


LECTURE  V. 


Note  33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

43. 

44. 


ManseVs  Bampton  Lectures  **  , • . . • 279 

Christ* s humanity  personal  or  impersonal  ? • • • 279 

God*s  love  revealed  first  in  Christ  . . • • • 280 

Prayer  in  accordance  with  law  . . • • , 280 

The  death  of  Christ  not  God*s  act  . 280 

God’s  gradual  method  in  the  Old  Testament  • • • 281 

St.  Augustine  on  evolution 281 

God  self -limited 282 

Arbitrary  decrees  attributed  to  God  . • t • 282 

The  three  elements  in  man*s  spirit 283 

God’s  triune  being  disclosed  in  Christ  • • • • 283 

Unitarianism  untenable • 283 


LECTURE  VI. 

Note  45.  Johannes  de  Lugo  ....••••  283 

46.  Divine  power  shown  most  chiefly  in  self-humiliation  . 284 

47.  The  conception  of  the  Incarnation  . . • • • 284 

48.  Fathers  on  the  human  ignorance  of  Christ  • • • 285 

49.  The  protest  of  Theodoret 286 

50.  Christ  could  have  sinned  if  He  had  willed  • • • 286 

51.  Man  not  originally  perfect**  , • • • • • 286 


LECTURE  VIL 

Note  52.  We  know  in  part  and  prophesy  in  part  • • • • 287 

63.  St,  Augustine  on  purgatory  ..••••  287 

64.  No  new  doctrines  in  the  Church  • • « • • 288 

66.  Our  Lord’s  argument  from  Ps.  ex,  * • • • • 288 


SYNOPSIS  OF  CONTENTS. 


XXI 


LECTUKE  Vin. 

PAGE 

Note  66.  **  The  spirit  ” and  **  the  letter  289 

67.  Excommunication 290 

68.  The  new  birth 290 

69.  The  Spirit  conveying  to  us  the  life  of  Christ  . • . 290 

60.  The  glorified  Christ  quickening  spirit**  . . . 294 

61.  The  connection  of  grace  with  sacraments  • • . 294 


LECTURE  I. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 

We  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  under- 
standing^  that  we  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that 
is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and 
eternal  life.  My  little  children,  guard  yourselves  from  idols. — 
1 St.  John  v.  20,  21  (R.  V.). 

Christianity  exists  in  the  world  as  a distinctive 
religion ; and  if  we  are  asked,  What  is  the  distin- 
guishing characteristic  of  this  religion?”  we  can 
hardly  hesitate  for  an  answer.  Christianity  is  faith 
in  a certain  person  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  faith  in  Him 
is  meant  such  unreserved  self-committal  as  is  only 
possible,  because  faith  in  Jesus  is  understood  to  be 
faith  in  God,  and  union  with  Jesus  union  with  God* 
We  know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that 
is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the 
true  God,  and  eternal  life.”^ 

I. 

That  true  Christianity  is  thus  a personal  relation- 
ship — the  conscious  deliberate  adhesion  of  men  who 
know  their  weakness,  their  sin,  their  fallibility,  to  a 
1 See  appended  note  1. 


2 THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


redeemer  whom  they  know  to  be  supreme,  sinlessj 
infallible — is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  produces  Tts 
characteristic  fruit  only  in  proportion  as  it.,  is  . thus 
^ realized.  We  cdn.  make  this  apparently  obvious 
proposition  more  emphatic  if  we  recall  to  our  mind 
some  of  the  many  ways  in  which  the  true  character  of 
our  religion  has  been,  and  is,  distorted  or  obscured. 

1.  For,  first,  Christianity  has  brought  with  it  a 
visible  society  or  church,  with  dogmatic  propositions 
and  sacramental  ordinances  and  a ministerial  priest- 
hood, and  it  has  been  easy  so  to  misuse  these  elements 
of  the  ecclesiastical  system,  as  to  make  Christianity 
no  longer  devotion  to  a living  person,  but  the  accept- 
ance on  authority  of  a system  of  theological  proposi- 
tions and  ecclesiastical  duties.  When  churchman- 
ship  assumes  this  degenerate  form,  Christianity  is 
not  indeed  destroyed,  nor  does  it  cease  to  bring  forth 
moral  and  spiritual  fruit ; but  the  fruit  is  of  an  inf e- 
. rior  and  less  characteristic  quality,  it  is  not  the  spirit 
’.and  temper  of  sonship.  At  the  lowest  it  even  tends 
to  approximate  to  what  any  religious  organization  is 
capable  of  producing,  merely  on  account  of  the  disci- 
pline which  it  enforces,  and  the  sense  of  security 
which  its  fellowship  imparts.  To  the  true  and  typi- 
cal churchman,  on  the  other  hand,  all  the  ecclesias- 
tical fabric  only  represents  an  unseen  but  present 
Lord.  The  eyes  of  an  Ignatius,  or  an  Athanasius,  or 
a Leo,  or  a Bernard,  or  a Pusey,  however  much  his- 
tory may  rightly  identify  these  men  with  zeal  on 
behalf  of  the  organization  and  dogmas  of  the  church, 
were  in  fact,  as  their  writings  sufficiently  testify. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


3 


never  off  their  Lord  for  whom  alone  and  in  whom 
alone  all  external  things  had  their  value. 

2.  Again,  the  constant  outlook  of  the  soul  of  the 
Christian  upon  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  may  be 
intercepted  by  the  undue  exaltation  of  saintly  inter- 
cessors. Thus  there  are  districts  of  the  church  in 
which  devotion  to  our  Lord’s  mother  has  usurped 
such  prominence  in  Christian  worship  as  in  fact  to 
interfere  with  His  unique  prerogative,  so  that  in 
some  real  sense,  there  has  been  a division  of  terri- 
tory effected  between  Him  and  her  as  objects  of 
devotion.  This  statement  may  be  justified  by  quot- 
ing from  a writer  who  is  specially  representative  of 
the  attitude  encouraged  in  the  Roman  communion 
towards  the  blessed  Virgin  — St.  Alfonso  de’  Liguori. 
‘‘When  she  conceived  the  Son  of  God  in  her  womb,” 
he  writes,  “ and  afterwards  gave  Him  birth,  ^she 
obtained  the  half  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  so  that 
she  should  be  queen  of  mercy,  as  Christ  is  king  of^ 
justice.”  Thus,  while  the  king  must  have  regard 
toTilie  interests  of  justice,  the  queen  can  be  appealed 
to  as  unmixed  compassion.^  Once  again,  then,  when 
Mary  is  thus  exalted  to  a pedestal,  which  no  one 
would  ever  have  refused  so  utterly  as  she  herself, 
the  wine  of  Christianity  is  mixed  with  water.  For 
the  human  character  of  Jesus,  the  historical  char- 
acter, combining  the  strength  of  manhood  and  the 
tenderness  of  womanhood  in  perfect  alliance,  is 
always  strengthening  to  contemplate  and  to  adore. 
In  Him  mercy  and  truth  are  met  together,  righteous- 
1 See  app,  note  2. 


4 THE  IKCARKATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

jiess  and  peace  have  kissed  each  other  ; hut  the 
purely  ideal  figure  of  Mary,  as  it  finds  expression 
in  all  the  weakly  conceived  images  of  the  ‘‘mater 
misericordiae  ’ ’ which  meet  our  eyes  so  constantly  in 
the  churches  of  the  Continent,  appeals  to  a senti- 
ment, a craving  for  a compassion  unalloyed  with 
severity,  which  it  was  part  of  the  proper  function 
of  Christianity  even  to  extirpate. 

3.  Once,  again,  it  is  possible  for  our  religion  to 
lose  its  true  centre  by  becoming  what  we  may  call 
unduly  ‘‘^ub^ective.’^  Great  stress  may  be  laid  on 
personal  filing,  on  the  assurance  of  personal  salva- 
tion. Questions  may  be  freely  asked  and  answers 
expected  as  to  whether  this  or  that  religious  emo- 
tion has  been  experienced,  as  to  whether  a person 
has  ‘‘found  peace,”  or  “gained  assurance,”  or  “is 
saved.”  Now  “peace  with  God,”  and  ^‘joy  in  believ- 
ing,” even  assur^ce  oF^a^^esent  state  of  salvation, 
are  endowments  of  the  Christian  life,  which  God 
habitually  bestows  — which  may  be  both  asked  for 
and  thankfully  welcomed.  But  they  are  not  meant 
either  to  be  the  te^ts  of  reality  in  religion,  or  gener- 
ally subjects  of  self-examination. 

What  our  Lord  claims  of  us  is,  first,  service,  the 
service  of  ready  wills,  then  developing  faiA,  and  lives 
gradually  sanctified  by  correspondence  wiQi  Him.  On 
thes£j^oints  we  must  rigorously  examine  ourselves, 
Vnt  the  sense  of  the  service  of  Another,  of  co-opera- 
tion with  Another,  is  meant  to  become  so  absorbing 
a consciousness  as  to  swallow  up  in  us  the  considera- 
tion of  personal  feeling,  and  at  least  to  overshadow 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


5 


even  the  anxiety  for  our  own  separate  salvation. 
By  losing  our  lives  in  Christ  and  His  cause,  we  are 
meant  to  save  them;  to  serve  Christ,  not  jbo  ^feel 
jChrist,  is  the^mark^f^*]ffis^^^b^  seryante  they 
become  Christians  in  proportion  as  they  cease  to 
be  interested  in  themselves,  and  become  absorbed  in 
their  Lord. 

4.  Once,  again;  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity  may 
send  men  out  using  the  name  of  Him  who  is  the 
true  liberator  of  man;  but  depreciating  doctrine  in 
the  supposed  interests  of  philanthropy.  This  inevi- 
tably results  in  the  substitution  of  zeal  for  work  for 
zeal  for  Christ.  Where  Christ  is  really  contem- 
plated and  meditated  upon,  it  is  impossible  to  be  in- 
different as  to  the  explanation  to  be  given  of  His 
person  and  work ; in  the  knowledge  of  this  lies  the 
inspiration  of  labour  and  the  ground  of  perennial 
hopefulness.  When  in  fact  this  is  ignored,  the  work 
becomes  more  and  more  the  execution  of  the  worker’s 
own  schemes,  or  the  schemes  of  some  one  under 
whom  he  works,  with  less  and  less  regard  to  what 
can  truly  and  historically  be  called  the  purpose  and 
method  of  Jesus.  It  becomes  external  or  intellec- 
tual, it  ceases  to  touch  the  springs  of  character;  in 
a word,  it  becomes  less  and  less  a characteristic 
expression  of  the  energy  of  Christian  faith. 

5.  Once  again  and  for  the  last  time:  the  inter- 
ests of  a student  may  convert  Christianity  into  a 
philosophical  system,  coloured  intensely  by  the 
method  and  terminology  of  a particular  phase  of 
thought  and  very  exceptional  conditions  of  life. 


6 THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

This  was  the  case,  more  or  less,  with  the  Christian- 
ity of  Clement  of  Alexandria;  it  has  been  the  case 
not  infrequently,  since  his  day,  in  academic  circles. 
Where  it  is  the  case,  a system  becomes  the  object 
of  interest  rather  than  a person,  and  the  real  appeal 
of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whether  to  the  heart  of  the 
student  himself,  or  of  those  whom  he  may  be 
required  to  teach  by  word  or  by  writing,  is  propor- 
tionately weakened.  Nothing,  I suppose,  can  keep 
the  Christianity  of  a theoretical  student  from  deteri- 
oration, save  the  constant  exercise  of  prayer,  which 
is  the  address  of  person  to  person,  and  the  constant 
and  regular  contemplation  of  the  character  in  the 
Gospels,  even  as  the  apostolic  writer  bids  us  “con- 
sider the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  our  confession, 
even  Jesus. 

I have  specified  these  various  ways  in  which 
Christians  of  different  tendencies  may  obscure,  and 
have  in  fact  obscured,  the  true  glory  of  the  Chris- 
tian life,  because  it  is  important  to  throw  into  high 
relief,  what  is  the  simple  verdict  of  Christian  his- 
tory, that  the  characteristic  fruitfulness  of  our 
religion  — its  fruitfulness  in  the  temper  and  spirit 
of  sonship  — varies  with  the  extent  to  which  Jesus, 
the  historical  person,  the  ever-living  person,  is 
recognized  as  the  object  of  our  devotion,  and  the 
lord  of  our  life.  This  is  true  equally  of  personal 
religion  and  official  ministry,  for  it  is  converse 
with  the  perfect  personality  of  Jesus,  which  gives 
the  pastor  his  power  to  deal  with  the  various  per- 
1 Heb.  3,  1. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


7 


sonalities  of  his  flock,  and  the  preacher  his  power  to 
move  the  wills  and  consciences  of  his  hearers.  It 
is  devotion  to  Jesus  which  has  been  the  source  of 
the  enduring  forms  of  Christian  heroism.  It  is  the 
same  reality  of  personal  relationship  which  touches 
the  Christian’s  private  life  with  the  brightness  of 
sonship.  ‘^To  me,”  says  Paul  the  prisoner,  sum- 
marizing his  religion,  ‘‘  to  live  is  Christ  and  to  die 
is  gain,”  for  that  too  is  ‘Ho  depart  and  to  be  with 
Christ,”  which  “is  very  far  better.”^  “Eighty  and 
six  years,”  says  the  aged  Polycarp,  again  summariz- 
ing his  religion  in  response  to  the  demand  that  he 
should  revile  the  Christ,  “ eighty  and  six  years  have 
I been  His  servant,  and  He  never  did  me  an  injury; 
how  then  can  I blaspheme  my  king  who  is  my 

saviour?  ”2 

II. 

To  recognize  this  truth  is  to  be  struck  by  the 
contrast  which  in  this  respect  Christianity  presents 
to  other  religions.  For  example,  the  place  which 
Mohammed  holds  in  Islam  is  not  the  place  which  Jesus 
Christ  holds  in  Christianity,  but  that  which  Moses 
holds  in  Judaism.  The  Arabian  prophet  made  for 
himself  no  claim  other  than  that  which  Jewish  proph- 
ets made,  other  than  that  which  all  prophets,  true  or 
false,  or  partly  true  and  partly  false,  have  always 
made,  — to  speak  the  word  of  the  Lord.  The  sub- 
stance of  Mohammedanism,  considered  as  a religion, 
lies  simply  in  the  message  which  the  Koran  contains. 

1 Phil.  i.  21-23.  2 Martyr  S,  Polyc,  9. 


8 THE  INCAENATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


It  is,  as  no  other  religion  is,  founded  upon  a book. 
The  person  of  the  Prophet  has  its  significance  only 
so  far  as  he  is  supposed  to  have  certificated  the 
reality  of  the  revelations  which  the  book  records.^ 
Gautama,  again,  the  founder  of  Buddhism,  one, 
I suppose,  of  the  noblest  and  greatest  of  mankind, 
is  only  the  discoverer  or  rediscoverer  of  a method  or 
way,  the  way  of  salvation,  by  which  is  meant  the 
way  to  win  final  emancipation  from  the  weary  chain 
of  existence,  and  to  attain  Nirvana,  or  Parinirvana, 
the  final  blessed  extinction.  Having  found  this 
way,  after  many  years  of  weary  searching,  he  can 
teach  it  to  others,  but  he  is,  all  the  time,  only  a pre- 
eminent example  of  the  success  of  his  own  method, 
one  of  a series  of  Buddhas  or  enlightened  ones,  who 
shed  on  other  men  the  light  of  their  superior  knowl- 
edge. Thus,  in  the  Booh  of  the  G^reat  Decease  he  is 
represented,  in  conversation  with  his  disciple  Ananda, 
as  expressly  repudiating  the  idea  of  the  dependence 
of  the  Buddhist  order  on  himself.  ‘‘The  Perfect,’’ 
that  is,  the  Buddha,  he  says,  “ thinks  not  that  it  is 
he  who  should  lead  the  brotherhood,  or  that  the 
order  is  dependent  upon  him.  Why  then  should  he 
leave  instructions  in  any  matter  concerning  the 
order?  . . . Therefore,  O Ananda,  be  ye  lamps 
unto  yourselves.  Be  ye  a refuge  to  yourselves. 
Betake  yourselves  to  no  external  refuge.  . . . And 
whosoever,  Ananda,  either  now  or  after  I am  dead, 
shall  be  a lamp  unto  themselves,  and  a refuge  unto 
themselves,  shall  betake  themselves  to  no  external 

1 See  app.  note  3. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


9 


refuge,  but  holding  fast  to  the  truth  as  their  lamp, 
shall  look  not  for  refuge  to  any  one  besides  them- 
selves ...  it  is  they,  Ananda,  who  shall  reach  the 
very  topmost  height.”  ^ 

It  was  plainly  the  method  of  Buddha,  not  the 
person,  which  was  to  save  his  brethren.  As  for  the 
person,  he  passed  away,  as  the  writer  of  the  Bud- 
dhist scripture  repeatedly  declares,  with  that  utter 
passing  away  in  which  nothing  whatever  is  left 
behind,”  living  on  only  metaphorically  in  the 
method  and  teaching  which  he  bequeathed  to  his 
followers.  We  are  touching  on  no  disputed  point 
when  we  assert  that  according  to  the  Buddhist 
scriptures,  the  personal,  conscious  life  of  the 
founder  of  that  religion  was  extinguished  in  death. 
But  this  single  fact  points  the  contrast  with  Chris- 
tianity. The  teaching  of  Jesus  differs  in  fact  from 
the  teaching  of  the  Buddha  not  more  in  the  ideal  of 
salvation  which  he  propounded  than  in  the  place 
held  by  the  person  who  propounded  the  ideal.  For 
Jesus  Christ  taught  no  method  by  which  men  might 
attain  the  end  of  their  being,  whether  He  Himself, 
personally,  existed  or  was  annihilated:  but  as  He 
offered  Himself  to  men  on  earth  as  the  satisfaction 
of  their  being  — their  master,  their  example,  their 
redeemer  — so  when  He  left  the  earth  He  promised 
to  sustain  them  from  the  unseen  world  by  His  con- 
tinued personal  presence  and  to  communicate  to 
them  His  own  life,  and  He  assured  them  that  at  the 
last  they  would  find  themselves  face  to  face  with 

1 See  app.  note  4. 


10  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Him  as  their  judge.  The  personal  relation  to  Him- 
self is  from  first  to  last  of  the  essence  of  the  religion 
which  He  inaugurated. 


III. 

If  we  wish  to  account  for  the  unique  position 
which  Jesus  Christ  has  held  in  religion  it  is  only- 
necessary  to  examine  the  claim  which  He  is  repre- 
sented to  have  made  for  Himself  in  the  earliest 
records  which  we  possess.  History  in  fact  gives  a 
very  distinct  account  of  the  positions  relatively  to 
the  faith  of  their  disciples,  claimed  by  the  three 
founders  of  religion  whom  we  have  just  been  con- 
sidering. For  however  busy  legend  has  been  with 
the  Buddha,  there  appears  to  be  little  difficulty  in 
obtaining  a clear  picture  of  what  he  claimed  to  be, 
how  he  claimed  to  have  become  what  he  was,  and 
how  he  wished  his  disciples  to  follow  his  example. 
Legend  has  not  materially  distorted  the  picture  of  his 
own  estimate  of  himself.  No  more  than  Mohammed 
does  he,  on  his  own  showing,  enter  into  rivalry 
with  the  Jesus  of  the  Christian  tradition.  Whether 
history  has  or  has  not  left  us  the  true  image  of  the 
personal  claim  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  will  be  matter 
for  consideration  afterwards.  Here  I am  only  con- 
cerned to  make  good  the  position  that  the  teaching 
and  the  claim  of  J esus  as  it  is  represented  generally 
in  the  Gospels,  or  (let  me  say)  more  especially  in 
the  Synoptists,  accounts  for  and  justifies  the  place 
assigned  to  Him  in  historical  Christendom. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


11 


This  will  be  most  apparent  if  we  confine  our 
attention  chiefly  to  the  education  which  He  is  repre- 
sented as  giving  to  that  little  company  who  united 
themselves  to  Him  under  various  circumstances,  and 
whom  He  bound  together  into  the  body  of  Apostles. 
For,  diverting  attention  from  others.  He  concen- 
trated it  more  and  more  on  these.  We  are  admitted 
in  the  Gospels  to  observe  how  He  trained  these  few 
men  to  understand  His  person  and  commit  them- 
selves body  and  soul  to  Him. 

Many  passed  to  Christ  from  the  school  of  John 
the  Baptist,  and  their  initiation  to  discipleship  con- 
sisted in  the  experience  of  their  former  master  lay- 
ing down  his  crown  at  the  feet  of  Him,  the  latchet 
of  whose  shoes  ” he  professed  himself  ‘‘unworthy  to 
stoop  down  and  unloose.”  The  personality  of  Jesus 
lays  upon  them  from  the  first  its  strong  fascination. 
It  is  only  gradually,  however,  through  the  experi- 
ence of  His ' manhood  that  they  are  led  to  any  real 
conviction  of  His  superhuman  nature.  They  listen 
to  His  words  of  power,  as  He  speaks  like  the  em- 
bodied voice  of  conscience,  “as  one  having  author- 
ity,” convincingly  yet  without  reason  given,  setting 
aside,  as  inadequate,  what  the  lawgiver  of  old  had 
spoken  as  God’s  own  messenger,  “It  was  said  to 
them  of  old  time  . . . But  I say  unto  you.”  ^ They 
are  made  to  feel  that  it  is  no  longer  the  servant  who 
is  speaking,  but  the  Son.  Moreover  in  the  midst  of 
His  authoritative  teaching,  a claim  makes  itself 
heard,  which  is  of  a piece  with  His  general  tone, 
1 St.  Matt.  V.  21,  22. 


12  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

and  yet  by  itself  is  of  staggering  import,  claim  to 
pronounce  at  the  last  the  final  divine  judgment,  not "" 
on  the  overt  actions  of  men  only,  but  on  their  secret 
lives.  This  claim  is  first  expressed  in  regard  to  His 
professed  followers  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

“ Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day.  Lord,  Lord,  did 
we  not  prophesy  by  thy  name,  and  by  thy  name  cast 
out  devils,  and  by  thy  name  do  many  mighty  works  ? 
And  then  will  I profess  unto  them,  I never  knew 
you:  depart  from  me,  ye  that  work  iniquity.”^  It 
makes  itself  heard  again  and  again,  but  it  culmi- 
. nates  in  the  picture  which  our  Lord  draws  of  Himself 
before  His  passion,  when  before  Him  shall  be  gath- 
ered, not  His  own  followers  only,  or  the  Jews,  but 
“all  the  nations,”  and  He  shall  pass  sentence  on 
them  individually^  as  one  who  knows  them  better 
than  they  know  themselves.^  Conceive  what  it 
must  have  been  to  live  with  one,  who,  however 
gently  and  carefully  He  respected  and  dealt  with 
Luman  individuality  and  freewill,  yet  declared  Him- 
self to  be,  and  was  believed  to  be,  the  final  judge  of 
all  human  actions  and  human  motives.  In  such 
intercourse  must  not  reverence  inevitably  have 
tended  to  pass  into  worship,  for  is  it  not  our  great 
preservative  against  idolizing  any  other  human  being 
that  we  know  that  he  and  we  alike  are  the  simple 
subjects  of  divine  judgment?  The  Apostles  had 
to  do  with  one  Who  never  spoke  of  Himself  or 
seemed  to  conceive  of  Himself,  as  liable  to  sin  or 
failure  under  probation,  and  Who  claimed  to  be  the 
1 St.  Matt.  vii.  22,  23.  * st.  Matt.  xxv.  31-46. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


13 


filial  enunciator  and  vindicator  of  the  law  of  right 
and  wrong.  It  was  only  the  same  claim  in  other 
words  which  He  made  when  He  declared  that 
the  Son  of  man  had  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins,^  for  it  is  the  ultimate  judge  who  is  the  proper 
absolver;  nor  could  it  seem  strange  to  them  that 
His  moral  power  should  have  its  counterpart  in 
His  physical  power  to  impart  life  and  to  heal  dis- 
eases. There  is  — a pious  Jew  at  least  would  know 
— only  one  ultimate  lordship  in  spirit  and  in  mat- 
ter, and  He  who  claimed  and  exercised  it  in  the 
one  department  would  naturally  claim  and  exercise 
it  in  the  other.  So  it  was  that  by  teaching  and 
miracle,  and  still  more  by  the  subtle  influence  of 
long  months  of  companionship  in  work  and  in  travel. 
He  deliberately  trained  the  twelve  men  to  trust  Him 
utterly  in  His  presence  and  in  His  absence,  as  the 
unerring  friend,  the  all-powerful  guide,  the  supreme 
and  unfailing  resource.  Such  trust  undoubtedly 
transcended  the  limits  of  what  is  legitimate  from 
man  to  man;  a mere  man,  however  exalted,  must 
always  point  his  fellow-men  away  from  himself  up 
to  God;  he  must  always  exalt  his  message  above 
himself ; he  must  always  explain  that  he  is  only  one 
of  the  many  messengers  that  God  in  His  wisdom  can 
use.  But  as  in  Jesus  there  was  a marked  absence  of 
all  that  sense  of  unworthiness,  which  has  clung  to 
God’s  messengers  before  and  after  Him  in  propor- 
tion to  their  goodness,  so  in  Him  also  there  was  the 
opposite  of  all  that  disparagement  of  merely  per- 
1 St.  Matt.  ix.  6. 


14  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


sonal  claims  which  made  Moses  cry,  ‘‘  Oh  Lord,  send, 
I pray  thee,  by  the  hand  of  him  whom  thou  wilt 
send,”  and  St.  Paul,  ‘‘What  then  is  Apollos?  and 
what  is  Paul?”^  What  scripture  calls  the  jealousy 
of  God,  that  exclusive  unique  claim  which  God 
alone  can  make  on  the  souls  of  men,  because  He 
alone  can  absorb  without  narrowing  the  allegiance 
of  all  spirits  whom  He  has  created,  — that  jealousy 
of  God  utters  itself  in  the  solemn  words,  “No  one 
knoweth  the  Son  save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any 
know  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomso- 
ever the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him.  Come  unto  me, 
all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I will 
give  you  rest,”^  or  again,  “If  any  man  cometh  unto 
me  and  hateth  not  his  own  father,  and  mother,  and 
wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea, 
and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.”^ 
Set  yourselves  to  imagine  what  the  effect  of  such 
language  must  have  been,  not  on  the  crowd  who 
came  and  went,  who  received  the  seed  by  the  way- 
side,  but  on  the  good  soil  of  the  hearts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, kept  under  careful  cultivation  to  receive  the 
deliberately  sown  seed  of  the  Master’s  word.  Christ 
was  systematically  training  them  to  trust  Him  with 
the  sort  of  trust  which  can  be  legitimately  given  to 
God  only.  This  becomes  all  the  more  conspicuous 
when  we  find  Him  repudiating  from  one  who  came 
with  the  vague  language  of  casual  respect,  even  the 
familiar  title,  “Good  Master.”^  Such  ordinary  and 

1 Ex.  iv.  13;  1 Cor.  iii.  5.  ^ gt.  Matt.  xi.  27,  28;  cf.  St.  Luke  x.  22. 

8 St.  Luke  xiv.  26.  ^ St.  Mark  x.  17. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


15 


casual  deference,  the  language  of  mere  compliment 
commonly  addressed  to  contemporary  Rabbis,  He 
would  not  accept;  but  language  far  higher,  devotion 
of  far  intenser  meaning.  He  was  meanwhile  deliber- 
ately encouraging  in  the  disciples  who  did  know 
Him,  and  had  reasons  for  what  they  said  and  felt : ^ 
just  as  with  the  women,  while  He  checked  the  vague 
enthusiasm  of  her  who  lifted  up  her  voice  out  of  the 
multitude  to  cry,  ‘‘Blessed  is  the  womb  that  bare 
thee,  and  the  paps  which  thou  didst  suck,”  He  wel- 
comed the  more  deliberate  honours  paid  to  Him  by 
the  woman  who  was  a sinner,  or  Mary  the  sister  of 
Lazarus.^ 

The  training  of  the  Apostles,  which  is  always  pro- 
ceeding, has  certain  critical  moments.  Thus  at 
Caesarea  Philippi,  our  Lord  solemnly  evoked,  under 
conditions  of  trial  and  disappointment,  the  expres- 
sion of  the  gradually  clearing  faith  of  His  disciples 
in  Himself,. so  far  at  least  as  the  full  acknowledg- 
ment of  His  Messiahship  — that  He  was  “the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God”  or  “the  Holy  One  of 
God.”^  Again,  at  the  Mount  of  the  Transfigura- 
tion, He  revealed  unmistakably  to  the  inner  circle, 
to  Peter,  James,  and  John,  something  of  His  hidden 
glory,  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.^ 
More  than  once  He  gave  more  or  less  explicit  utter- 

1 Cf.  esp.  St.  Matt,  xxiii.  7-10. 

2 St.  Luke  xi.  27 ; vii.  36-50;  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  6-13;  St.  John  xi.  2. 

3 St.  Matt.  xvi.  16,  cf.  St.  Mark  viii.  29;  St.  Luke  ix.  20;  St.John 
vi.  69. 

4 St.  Matt.  xvii.  1-8 ; St.  Mark  ix.  2-8 ; St.  Luke  ix.  28-36 ; 2 Peter  i, 
16-18. 


16  THE  IKCARHATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

ance,  so  that  the  disciples  might  hear  and  take  heed, 
to  His  inner  consciousness  of  essential  relation  to 
the  Father,  as  when  He  spoke  of  the  mutual  and 
exclusive  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,^  or 
distinguished  Himself  as  the  only  son,  in  the  parable 
of  the  vineyard  and  the  husbandmen,  from  God’s 
many  servants  and  messengers,^  or  confessed  His 
divine  sonship  before  the  Sanhedrim  on  his  trial  in 
full  view  of  the  mortal  penalty  which  that  confession 
involved.^  No  doubt  up  to  the  time  of  the  passion, 
the  faith  of  the  disciples  in  their  Lord  was  dim  and 
inchoate.  It  was  personal  loyalty  not  yet  theologi- 
cally articulate  or  self-conscious.  The  passion,  the 
failure,  the  death,  were  enough  to  crush  it  down  for 
the  moment,  in  spite  of  all  the  intimations  with 
which  Jesus  Christ  had  pi^epared  their  minds  for 
that  foreseen  catastrophe.  The  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion was  hardly  and  with  difficulty  believed.  But 
when  it  was  believed,  it  lifted  their  faith  to  a new 
level  and  planted  it  upon  a solid  rock  whence  it 
could  never  be  again  dislodged.  He  was  marked 
out  for  them,  and  through  them  for  the  world,  as  the 
Son  of  God  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.^  The 
confession  of  Thomas  after  the  resurrection  recorded 
in  the  fourth  Gospel,  “My  Lord  and  my  God,”  is 
no  less  representative  than  the  earlier  confession  of 
Peter  recorded  in  the  three  earlier  Gospels,  “ Thou 

1 St.  Matt.  xi.  27;  St.  Luke  x.  22. 

2 St.  Matt.  xxi.  33-46 ; St.  Mark  xii.  1-12 ; St.  Luke  xx.  9-18. 

3 St.  Matt.  xxvi.  62-65;  St.  Mark  xiv.  60-64;  St.  Luke  xxii.  66-71. 

^ Kom.  i.  3,  4. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


17 


art  the  Christ  of  God,” — “the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God.”  The  last  utterance  of  Jesus,  as 
St.  Matthew  records  it,  not  only  assured  His  disci- 
ples of  the  universal  authority  assigned  to  Him  as 
the  exalted  Son  of  man,  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth, 
and  of  His  continual  presence  with  them  ‘^all  the 
days  unto  the  end  of  the  world,”  but  also  gave  per- 
manence and  security  to  their  highest  thoughts  of 
Him  as  Son  of  God,  by  formulating  the  name,  or 
revelation  of  God,  for  all  time,  as  the  “name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.” 
After  Pentecost,  the  Apostles  had  no  doubt  at  all 
that  Jesus  Christ  as  Son  of  God  was  the  summary 
object  of  faith  and  worship,  and  that  in  committing 
to  Him  their  whole  being,  they  were  not  running  the 
risk  of  idolatry,  but  were  only  attaining  union  with 
God  through  His  Son  by  the  Spirit  which  He  had 
given  them. 

I have  endeavoured  briefly  to  traverse  very  famil- 
iar ground  in  thus  recalling  to  your  minds  how  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospels  does  make  a claim  for  Himself 
which  warrants  (to  speak  generally)  the  belief  about 
Him  to  which  we  are  accustomed  in  the  Christian 
Church.  That  this  is  familiar  ground,  upon  which 
it  is  not  necessary  long  to  dwell,  is  due  in  great 
measure  to  one,  the  tones  of  whose  memorable  voice 
the  majority  of  us  must  have  heard  from  this  pul- 
pit last  Whitsunday,  and  heard  for  the  last  time. 
Among  all  Dr.  Liddon’s  titles  to  our  gratitude,  none 
is  more  conspicuous  than  the  service  which  he  ren- 
dered when  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  he  put  his 


18  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


faultless  powers  of  analysis  and  expression  at  the 
disposal  of  his  passionate  faith  in  order  to  exhibit 
the  nature  and  the  significance  of  our  Lord’s  asser- 
tion of  Himself.^  He  is  identified,  as  with  hardlj^ 
anything  else,  with  the  re-statement  of  the  great 
dilemma  based  on  the  claim  of  Jesus  Christ,  that 
either  He  was  what  alone  could  morally  justify  that 
claim,  the  very  Son  of  God,  or  He  was  indeed  guilty 
of  the  supreme  arrogance  of  putting  Himself  in  the 
place  of  God,  — ‘‘aut  Deus  aut  homo  non  bonus. 

Thoughtful  men  generally  view  with  distrust  the 
dilemma  as  a form  of  argument.  We  in  Oxford  may 
remember  how  a very  brilliant  contemporary  of  Dr. 
Liddon  gave  expression  to  this  distrust  by  saying 
that  he  had  made  it  a rule  when  any  one  presented 
him  with  a dilemma  to  turn  his  back  and  refuse  to 
have  anything  to  say  to  it.  But,  after  all,  there  are 
dilemmas,  though  they  may  not  be  many,  the  force 
of  which  grows  upon  us  the  more  we  consider  them; 
the  dilemma  based  upon  the  claim  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
one  of  these;  and  it  may  be  asserted  here  at  the 
beginning  of  our  discussion,  that  to  represent  our 
Lord  only  as  a good  man  conscious  of  a message  from 
God,  like  one  of  the  Prophets  or  John  the  Baptist, 
is  to  do  violence  not  to  one  Gospel  only  or  to  sin- 
gle passages  in  various  Gospels,  but  to  the  general 
tenour  of  the  Gospels  as  a whole. 

1 See  Liddon,  Divinity  of  our  Lord,  Lect.  4. 

2 See  app.  note  5. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


19 


IV. 

Among  those  who  cannot  accept  cordially  the  prop- 
ositions of  the  Christian  creed,  but  at  the  same 
time  are  anxious  to  maintain  religion  in  society  and 
in  their  own  lives,  there  is  an  unmistakable  unwill- 
ingness to  consider  fairly  what,  historically  and  in 
experience,  Christianity  has  been,  wherein  its  great 
strength  lies  and  has  lain.  They  wish,  for  safety’s 
sake,  to  fuse  the  distinctive  outlines  of  our  religion 
in  a vague  atmosphere.  But  it  is  never  wise  to 
refuse  to  look  steadily  at  facts. 

Whether  Christianity  can  or  can  not  be  rationally 
maintained  is  another  question.  But  there  is  not 
much  doubt,  so  far,  what  Christiantity  is.  I do  not 
think  it  can  be  reasonably  gainsayed  (1)  that  Chris- 
tianity has  meant  historically,  faith  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ,  considered  as  very  God  incarnate,  so 
much  so  that  if  this  faith  were  gone,  Christianity 
in  its  characteristic  features  would  be  gone  also; 
(2)  that,  thus  considered,  Christianity  is  differen- 
tiated from  other  religions  by  the  attitude  of  its 
members  towards  its  Founder;  (3)  that  this  attitude 
of  Christianity  towards  its  Founder  is  (speaking 
generally)  explained  and  justified  by  the  witness  of 
the  earliest  records  to  His  personality  and  claim. 

Taking  then  these  positions  for  granted,  I am  to 
ask  your  attention  in  these  lectures  to  the  Person 
of  Jesus  Christ,  with  especial  reference  to  His  incar- 
nation, that  is,  to  the  truth  that  being  the  Son  of 


20  THE  INCAENATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


God,  He  was  made  very  man ; and  I am  to  endeavour 
to  express  and  justify  the  conviction  that,  however 
slowly  and  painfully,  the  old  faith  in  Him  is  being 
brought  out  in  harmony  not  only  with  our  moral 
needs  and  social  aspirations,  but  also  with  that 
knowledge  of  nature  and  that  historical  criticism 
which  are  the  special  growth  of  our  time. 

In  presenting  Jesus  Christ  to  you,  as  Christians 
believe  on  Him,  I must  necessarily  present  to  you 
one  who,  though  human,  is  yet,  what  is  called 
miraculous  and  supernatural.  It  will  be  my  en- 
deavour in  the  next  lecture,  so  to  interpret  these 
words  ‘‘supernatural”  and  “miraculous  ” as  to  make 
it  apparent  that  the  supernatural  in  Jesus  Christ  is 
not  unnatural,  and  the  miraculous  not  the  “ reversal  ” 
or  the  “suspension”  of  nature;  rather,  that  Jesus 
Christ  incarnate  is  the  legitimate  climax  of  natural 
development,  so  that  the  study  of  nature  — if  only 
in  that  term  moral  nature  is  included  — is  the  true 
preparation  for  welcoming  the  Christ.  In  the  third 
lecture  it  will  be  necessary  to  face  the  objection 
made  to  the  historical  facts  of  the  Incarnation,  on 
the  ground  that,  however  credible  in  themselves, 
they  lack  adequate  attesting  evidence.  We  shall 
consider  then  the  function  of  evidence,  and  the  par- 
ticular character  of  the  historical  evidence,  consid- 
ered merely  as  such,  which  the  New  Testament  sup- 
plies, to  the  facts  of  our  Lord’s  birth  of  the  Virgin 
Mary,  life,  death,  and  resurrection;  and  we  shall 
ask  ourselves  whether  this  evidence  really  allows  us 
to  suppose  that  in  the  traditional  Christ  we  have  the 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


21 


result  of  His  gradual  deification  by  the  imagination 
of  uncritical  disciples.  Next,  the  question  will  pre- 
sent itself,  whether  it  is  not  possible  to  admit  gen- 
erally the  historical  character  of  the  New  Testament 
records,  and  still  to  decline  the  faith  of  the  church, 
on  the  ground  that  the  catholic  dogmas  about  the 
person  of  Christ  do  not  in  fact  simply  represent  or 
guard  the  faith  of  the  first  Christians  in  Jesus  Christ 
crucified  and  risen.  Thus  in  the  fourth  lecture  the 
view  will  be  considered  that  elements  other  than 
those  supplied  by  the  historical  Christ  must  enter  in 
in  order  to  link  the  faith  of  the  New  Testament  to 
the  faith  of  the  fathers  of  the  councils.  We  shall 
have  to  consider  the  nature  of  ecclesiastical  dogmas, 
their  function  and  value,  as  well  as  the  dangers  con- 
nected with  them,  and  the  limits  to  their  applica- 
tion. Starting  then  from  the  assumption  of  the 
church’s  faith  about  Jesus  Christ,  we  shall  be  in  a 
position  to  scrutinize  reverently  the  revelation  in- 
volved in  His  person,  and  to  ask  ourselves  what 
exactly  it  is  in  our  knowledge  of  the  character  and 
being  of  God,  which  we  owe  to  the  fact  that  He  has 
been  manifested  in  manhood.  This  will  occupy  the 
fifth  lecture.  It  will  lead  on  to  the  consideration 
in  the  sixth  lecture  of  what  is  taught  us  about 
human  nature  through  the  humanity  of  the  Son 
of  man,  and  at  this  point  it  will  be  necessary  to 
examine  what  is  the  picture  which  the  Gospels  pre- 
sent to  us  of  our  Lord’s  condition  in  the  days  of  His^ 
flesh ; what  limitations  upon  the  mode  of  existence 
natural  to  the  Son  of  God  were  accepted  in  order 


22  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

that  He  might  really  enter  into  the  experiences  ot 
manhood;  what  is  the  meaning  of  His  ^‘self-empty- 
ing.” In  the  seventh  lecture  our  Lord  will  be  con- 
sidered as  the  supreme  authority  and  the  fount  of 
all  lower  forms  of  authority  in  the  moral  and  spirit- 
ual life  of  man.  It  will  be  considered  what  was  the 
method  in  which  He  Himself  exercised  authority, 
and  presumably,  therefore,  meant  that  it  should  be 
exercised  in  His  name ; what  is  the  nature  of  relig- 
ious authority,  and  what  for  Christians  its  seat; 
what  sort  of  authority  Christ  recognized  in  the  Old 
Testament  scriptures,  what  authority  He  imparted 
to  His  Apostles,  what  to  the  church.  In  the  last 
lecture,  leaving  aside  for  lack  of  space  our  Lord’s 
work  of  atonement,  we  will  contemplate  the  moral 
standard  of  human  life  which  He  erected  by  His 
teaching  and  example,  and  we  will  consider  Him  in 
that  part  of  His  redemptive  work  which  He  accom- 
plishes from  the  other  world,  as  head  of  His  body 
the  church,  redeeming  men  by  the  infusion  of  His 
own  life  through  the  Spirit  and  moulding  them  in- 
wardly to  the  pattern  of  the  humanity  which  He  set 
before  them  outwardly  during  His  life  upon  earth. 

V. 

In  these  lectures  it  is  obvious  we  shall  be  dealing 
constantly  with  such  theological  propositions  as  find 
their  statement  in  the  creed.  Now  it  is  impossible 
but  that  in  a congregation  such  as  this,  there  should 
be  some  who,  more  or  less  articulately,  deprecate 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


23 


theology,  and  desire  the  severance  of  practical  Chris- 
tianity from  what  they  would  call  ecclesiastical 
dogma,  or  perhaps  in  a more  recent  phrase,  Greek 
metaphysics.  Perhaps  they  would  accept  the  phrase 
of  recently-published  Hibbert  Lectures  that  the 
‘‘Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  not  an  outlying  portion 
of  the  Gospel,  but  its  sum.”^  If  I am  speaking 
to  any  of  this  mind,  I would  in  the  time  that 
remains  to  me  this  morning,  ask  their  attention  to 
four  brief  considerations. 

(1)  (^Christianity  became  the  metaphysical  simply 
and  only  because  man  is  rational.  His  rationality 
means  that  he  must  attempt  “to  give  account  of 
things,”  as  Plato  saw  because  he  was  a man,  not 
only  because  he  was  a Greek.  Man  cannot  go  on 
acting  without  reason  given  and  accepted  for  his 
actions.  Thus  in  morality,  if  he  finds  himself  act- 
ing on  a moral  law,  and  regarding  it  as  obligatory, 
he  must  give  some  account  of  its  obligatoriness ; he 
must  regard  it  as  expressing  the  moral  will  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  or  as  the  law  of  reason,  transcen- 
dental and  prior  to  experience,  making  itself  felt  in 
his  conscience  as  a “categorical  imperative”;  or 
rejecting  these  metaphysical  theories,  he  may  explain 
morality  as  nothing  else  at  the  bottom  than  the 
desire  for  pleasure  and  shrinking  from  pain,  disci- 
plined and  taught  in  the  successive  experiences  of 
our  race.  This  last  theory  may  be  called  unmeta- 
physical, but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  it  were 

1 Dr.  Hatch’s  Hibbert  Lectures^  1888,  p.  351,  cf.  p.  1.  See  further 
Lect.  iv.  app.  note  25. 


24  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

commonly  held,  in  a generation  or  two  the  old  sense 
of  absolute  moral  obligation  would  have  yielded 
place  to  the  more  or  less  enlightened  sense  of  self- 
interest.  For  man,  however  inconsistent  he  may 
seem  to  be,  if  you  take  a transverse  section  of 
humanity  at  any  point,  presents  a much  more  logi- 
cal aspect  if  you  look  down  some  long  reach  of  his 
development ; his  action  at  least  settles  down  to  his 
theory,  if  his  theory  does  not  justify  his  higher 
action.  Just  like  morality,  then,  Christianity  must 
have  become  either  metaphysical  or  anti-metaphysi- 
cal. Christians  found  themselves  treating  Jesus 
Christ,  believing  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  they  had  never 
treated  or  believed  in  any  other  man,  and  that 
because  of  His  personality  and  claim,  as  moral 
master  and  judge  of  mankind,  — a claim,  which,  by 
the  way,  appears  nowhere  more  prominently  than 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Because  they  were 
rational  they  must  have  asked  themselves,  “Why 
do  we  treat  Jesus  Christ  in  this  exceptional  man- 
ner? Who  is  He  to  be  so  treated?  What  is  His 
relation  to  God  whose  functions  He  exercises  ? Why 
are  we  not  idolaters  if  we  yield  Him  such  worship  ? ” 
They  must  have  asked  these  questions  because  they 
were  men  endowed  with  reason,  and  could  not  there- 
fore go  on  acting  without  giving  some  account  of 
their  action.  The  questions  once  asked  must  have 
been  answered,  and  the  answer  must  have  involved 
metaphysics,  if  Jesus  Christ  was  to  retain  His  excep- 
tional position.  He  could  only  be  treated  in  a way 
in  which  no  prophet  or  righteous  man  had  ever  been 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


25 


treated,  if  in  fact,  He  was  more  than  they  were,  in 
some  peculiar  relation  to  God,  in  some  transcen- 
dental sense  the  Son  of  the  Father.  Here  is  meta- 
physics. Or  if  some  such  explanation  had  been 
refused  and  Christians  had  settled  down  to  do  with- 
out any  fresh  metaphysics,  if  they  had  refused  to 
give  any  account  of  Christ  except  that  He  was  a 
prophet,  the  special  characteristics  of  Christianity 
would  have  tended  to  vanish ; as  in  fact,  that  class 
of  Ebionites,^  who  most  approximated  to  this  refusal, 
were  the  least  significant  and  progressive  element  of 
early  Christianity.  Be  it  said,  then,  once  for  all,  we 
cannot  go  on  treating  and  believing  in  Jesus  Christ 
in  a way  in  which  it  would  be  wrong  to  treat  and 
believe  in  another  man,  without  a theory  of  His  per- 
son, which  explains  that  He  is  something  more  than 
man,  which  by  the  nature  of  the  case  must  be  meta- 
physical. For  metaphysics  is  nothing  else  than 
the  attempt  of  rational  man  to  take  account  of  the 
rational,  spiritual,  eternal  elements  which  enter 
into  his  experience. 

(2)  The  glory  of  Christianity  has  been  that  it  is  a 
Gospel,  a message  of  good  tidings  to  mankind  bur- 
dened with  sin  and  pain,  overwhelmed  in  despon- 
dency and  dismay.  Jesus  said,  ‘‘Come  unto  Me  all 
ye  that  are  weary  and  heavy  laden,  and  I will  give 
you  rest.”  Now  what  is  it  that  has  in  fact  made 
Christianity  so  real  a Gospel  ? It  is  the  simplicity 
of  its  message.  It  holds  up  the  crucifix  and  says 
’‘Sic  Deus  dilexit  mundum.”  This  is  a simple  mes- 

1 See  app.  note  6. 


26  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

sage,  and  it  is  simple  because  it  points  to  facts,  to 
the  old,  old  story  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus. 
But  observe,  the  facts  only  constitute  a Gospel, 
because  a certain  interpretation  of  them  is  implied. 
It  were  no  Gospel  that  the  best  of  men,  after  a life 
of  boundless  self-sacrifice,  should  have  been  harried 
to  death  on  Calvary.  It  only  becomes  a Gospel  if 
He  who  submits  to  this  ignominious  death  really 
reveals  the  love,  not  of  man  only,  but  of  God,  if  He 
really  was  the  Son  of  God,  who  out  of  the  love  which 
is  His  own  and  His  Father’s,  had  come  to  give 
Himself  in  sacrifice  for  man.  It  only  becomes  a 
Gospel,  again,  if  God’s  power  is  shown  through  the 
weakness  of  Christ’s  death,  and  He  gave  assurance 
of  this  to  all  men  in  that  He  raised  Him  from  the 
dead.  If  He  was  the  Son  of  God,  if  He  was  raised 
from  the  dead,  we  have  our  Gospel  for  the  world: 

God  sent  His  Son  into  the  world  not  to  condemn 
the  world,  but  that  the  world  through  Him  might 
be  saved.”  But  the  power  of  this  Gospel  depends 
utterly  on  an  interpretation  of  the  facts  which  is 
necessarily  theological,  or  (considered  intellectually) 
metaphysical,  involving  the  special  doctrine  of  the 
pre-existent  person  of  the  Son  who  was  sent  into 
the  world. 

(3)  Many  who  are  indifferent  or  hostile  to  the 
theology  of  Christianity,  have  an  even  passionate 
enthusiasm  for  its  morality.  And  indeed  it  is  easy  to 
see  why  men  should  cling  even  beyond  logical  justifi- 
cation to  an  objective  moral  standard  such  as  Chris- 
tianity supplies.  They  may  be  impressed,  like  the 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


27 


author  of  Natural  Religion  ^ with  the  lack  in  almost 
all  classes  of  English  society  of  any  clear  moral  ideal 
in  the  education  of  children;  or  they  may  be  dis- 
mayed to  feel  how  precarious  is  the  position  held  by 
some  moral  dogmas  which  are  yet  intimately  bound 
up  with  the  well-being  of  society,  such  as  the  indis- 
solubleness of  the  marriage-tie,  or  the  obligation  and 
possibility  of  purity,  or  the  absolute  sinfulness  of 
conscious  suicide ; or  again,  in  prospect  of  the  great 
social  changes  which  seem  to  be  approaching,  they 
may  take  note,  not  without  the  gravest  alarm,  of  the 
slight  hold  which  the  authority  of  the  moral  law 
seems  to  have  over  men  in  masses.  At  all  costs, 
they  feel,  we  must  assert  moral  authority.  Truly  we 
do  need,  beyond  all  question,  the  recognition  over 
us  of  an  unbending  moral  law  such  as  in  fact  is 
given,  if  Jesus  Christ  is  owned  as  our  moral  master. 
We  may  be  touched  and  not  surprised  then  when 
we  find  men  doing  homage  beyond  their  logic  to  His 
moral  lordship,  treating  Him  as  the  ultimate  author- 
ity who  sets  the  moral  standard  for  all  time,  claiming 
of  men,  because  they  are  men,  submission  to  the 
Son  of  man.  And  yet  such  a position,  if  it  is  to  be 
deliberate  and  reasoned,  — nay,  if  it  is  to  be  perma- 
nent at  all,  — requires  for  its  basis  some  belief,  at 
least,  in  Christ’s  supernatural  nature.  One  man  of  a 
particular  race  and  age  cannot  be  the  standard  for  all 
men,  the  judge  of  all  men  of  all  ages  and  races,  the 
goal  of  human  moral  development,  unless  He  is  some- 
thing more  than  one  man  among  many.  Such  a uni- 
1 See  app.  note  7. 


28  THE  INCABNATIOl^  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

versal  manliood  challenges  inquiry:  it  demands  an 
explanation  beyond  itself:  it  quite  transcends  even 
the  position  assigned  to  a Homer  or  a Shakespeare  in 
the  realm  of  poetry. 

(4)  I have  been  asking  you  to  consider  how  the 
practical  aspects  of  Christianity  as  a religion,  a 
gospel,  a moral  standard,  are  obviously  enough 
bound  up  with  its  theology.  It  has  many  other 
aspects  which  give  it  affinities  to  art,  to  science,  to 
history,  but  its  spiritual  and  moral  functions  are 
beyond  all  comparison  the  most  important;  and  a 
great  deal  is  gained  if  we  see  that  for  the  fulfilment 
of  these,  its  primary  functions,  Christianity  depends 
upon  its  theological  background.  There  is  only  one 
other  kindred  consideration  which  I will  ask  you 
to  entertain. 

On  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  person  the  historical 
Christian  Church  has  committed  itself  beyond  recall. 
On  many  subjects,  such  as  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment or  of  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  the 
church,  while  insisting  upon  the  truths,  offers  no 
definite  dogma,  and  binds  us  by  none.  Certainly  the 
dogmas  of  the  English  Church  are  few  and  central,  and 
consist  mainly  of  those  truths  about  God  and  the 
person  of  Christ  which  the  Nicene  creed  contains. 
But  on  these  points  the  church’s  requirement  is 
perfectly  definite;  so  that,  for  example,  she  con- 
stantly requires  her  ministers  to  make  public  and 
unambiguous  profession  of  their  personal  adhesion 
to  the  propositions  of  the  creed,  as  the  condition  of 
their  public  ministry.  On  these  central  points, 


WHAT  CHKISTIANITY  IS, 


29 


then,  it  is  impossible  for  the  Christian  Church  to 
exhibit  any  wavering  or  uncertainty,  and  still  to 
retain  credit  as  the  teacher  of  a divine  revelation. 
By  these  articles  of  our  faith,  Christianity  certainly 
as  a revealed  religion,  stands  or  falls. 

It  is  well  that  these  considerations  should  be 
present  to  our  minds  at  the  beginning  of  our  inquiry 
into  the  truth  about  Christ’s  person.  It  may  indeed 
be  suggested  that  these  are,  in  part,  only  considera- 
tions of  ‘‘consequences,”  consequences  which  would 
follow  if  Christianity  were  not  true,  and  that  the 
consideration  of  “consequences”  ought  to  be  alto- 
gether excluded  from  any  inquiry  into  matters  of 
fact;  but  the  suggestion  is  somewhat  delusive.  It 
is  not  only  that  the  consideration  of  “consequences  ” 
gives  us  an  adequate  sense  of  the  seriousness  of 
our  inquiry,  it  enters  also  into  the  actual  argument. 
It  forces  us  to  remember  that  the  rationality  of  any 
belief  means  more  than  its  logical  appeal  to  the 
intellect,  for  human  life  as  a whole  is  rational,  and 
a philosophy  can  hardly  be  true  to  reality  which 
would  leave  our  human  nature,  in  some  of  its  best 
and  most  universal  faculties  and  aspirations,  dis- 
consolate and  paralyzed.  To  no  one  who  in  any 
sense  believes  in  God,  can  it  be  an  argument  at  any 
rate  against  Christianity  that  it  is  so  satisfying,  or 
in  the  common  phrase,  “too  good  to  be  true.” 
Sounder  surely  is  Abt  Vogler’s  thought:  how  can 
we  “ doubt  that  God’s  power  can  fill  the  heart  that 
His  power  expands  ”? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  sense  of  the  seriousness  of 


30  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OP  GOD. 

what  is  at  stake  in  our  inquiry  should  make  us 
more  rigorous  in  demanding  that  the  inquiry  shall 
he  real.  The  wish  to  believe,  it  has  been  truly 
pointed  out,  in  the  case  of  the  best  men  of  our  day, 
sharpens  their  critical  faculties  instead  of  blunting 
them.^  We  do  not  want  to  be  hoodwinked  into 
believing,  or  to  believe  because  it  would  be  pleas- 
ant, or  in  defiance  of  the  facts.  Let  us  at  any  rate 
know  the  truth: 

(pdei  Kal  6\€(T(TOv. 

Thus  it  is  very  right  that  we  preachers  should 
be  jealously  watched  to  see  that  we  do  not  yield 
to  what  has  been  at  all  times  the  temptation  of  the 
pulpit,  to  substitute  well-sounding  phrases  for  real 
discussion.  St.  Jerome  tells  us  that  when  once  he 
asked  his  master  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  for  the  ex- 
planation of  a difficult  word  in  St.  Luke,  the  saint, 
with  no  slight  humour,  replied  that  he  would  prefer 
to  explain  it  in  the  pulpit;  because  when  there  is  an 
applauding  crowd  around  you,  you  are  compelled  to 
know  what  in  fact  you  are  ignorant  of.^  It  has  been 
the  temptation  of  the  pulpit  at  all  times  to  explain 
without  understanding,  and  to  gloss  over  the  weak 
points  in  the  argument  that  is  being  conducted. 
Thus  his  audience  can  assist  the  preacher  by  enabling 
him  to  feel  that  they  will  be  severe  on  any  failure  to 
face  the  point  of  an  objection  which  he  professes  to 
consider,  or  on  any  tendency  to  press  an  argument 
further  than  it  legitimately  carries;  and  we  may 

1 W.  Ward,  The  Wish  to  Believe  (Kegan  Paul,  1885),  pp.  7-10. 

2 S.  Hieron.  ad  NepoU  Ep.  62.  8. 


WHAT  CHRISTIANITY  IS. 


31 


be  sure  that  no  refusal  to  examine,  and  no  veiling 
of  disagreeable  truth,  can  ever  at  the  last  resort  be 
for  the  good  of  human  life,  or  to  the  honour  of  Him 
who  is  not  only  the  author  of  our  redemption,  but 
also  the  light  of  our  reason. 


/ 


LECTURE  II. 

CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL. 

The  Son  .the  firstborn  of  all  creation  ; for  in  him  were  all  things 

created.,  in  the  heavens  and  upon  the  earth  . . . ; all  things  have 
been  created  through  him,  and  unto  him;  and  he  is  before  all 
things,  and  in  him  all  things  consist.  And  he  is  the  head  of  the 
body,  the  church : who  is  the  beginning,  the  firstborn  from  the 
dead  ; that  in  all  things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence.  — Colos- 
SIANS  i.  14-18. 

Jesus  Christ,  as  the  Christian  Church  presents 
Him  for  our  acceptance,  is  a supernatural  person. 
It  is  because  He  is  this,  that  He  has  been  ‘‘  believed 
on  in  the  world”;  it  is  because  He  is  this,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  many  who  have  drunk  more  or  less 
deeply  of  the  spirit  of  our  time  withhold  their  belief 
from  Him.  For  the  supernatural,  they  say  in  effect, 
is  the  unnatural.  Now  the  believer  and  the  disbe- 
liever in  the  supernatural  Christ  have  this  common 
ground,  they  believe  in  nature.^  In  whatever  sense 
men  believe  in  God,  they  believe  that  nature  is  God’s 
ordinance,  and  nature’s  laws  God’s  laws,  and  the 
knowledge  of  nature  as  far  as  it  goes  the  knowledge 
of  God.  Here  is  a voice  then  which  is  on  both  sides 
admitted  to  be  God’s  voice.  That  other  voice  which 


32 


1 See  app.  note  8. 


CHEIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  3S 


makes  itself  heard  in  Jesus  Christ  claims  to  be  God’s 
voice  — His  fuller  and  more  articulate  utterance. 
Now  if  there  is  an  admittedly  authentic  work  of  an 
author,  and  a work  of  which  the  authenticity  is  dis- 
puted, the  admitted  work  must  obviously  suggest 
important  presumptions  for  or  against  the  contro- 
verted work.  Thus  we  contemplate  nature,  God’s 
admitted  work,  and  we  contemplate  the  Christ  — so- 
ardently  believed  in,  so  vehemently  rejected  — and 
leaving  aside  other  considerations,  we  ask  the  ques- 
tion, whether  nature  suggests  presumptions  against 
the  Christ  or  for  the  Christ.  This  is  the  contro- 
versy, and  the  chief  law  of  its  discussion  is  that 
which  has  been  laid  down  by  minds  characteristically 
English  as  valid  equally  in  the  region  of  physical 
and  of  theological  inquiry.  Bacon  and  Butler  alike 
warn  us,  each  in  his  own  department,  against  putting 
too  much  trust  in  abstract  ideas,  in  the  anticipatio 
mentis.”  We  are  not  then  in  this  investigation  of 
ours  to  suppose  that  we  can  determine  d priori  how 
God’s  completer  revelation  of  Himself  ought  to  have 
been  given,  if  given  at  all.  We  must  look  as  faith- 
fully at  the  Christ  of  Christian  tradition  who  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  revelation  of  the  Father,  as  we  da 
look  at  the  phenomena  of  nature,  and  when  we  have 
been  equally  faithful  to  both,  we  must  ask,  what  is 
the  testimony  of  nature  as  a whole  with  reference  to 
Him.  And  first  let  us  clear  the  ground  for  discus- 
sion.  f ' 


34  THE  IHCARNATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


There  are  some  who  see  in  nature  no  good  evi- 
dence of  authorship  at  all,  no  good  evidence,  that  is, 
of  God.  Mind,  as  they  view  it,  is  simply  a function 
of  material  life  in  its  highest  developments,  or  a 
phenomenon  of  a distinctive  kind,  attached  to  it.^ 
^‘He  that  made  the  eye,  shall  He  not  see”;  and  He 
that  planted  the  mind  and  heart,  shall  He  not  think 
and  feel  ? — is  a question  to  which,  they  allege,  there 
is  no  answer.  Nature  bears  witness  only  to  an  in- 
scrutable force,  working  by  constant  laws,  in  the 
production  of  all  structures  and  forms  of  life.  It 
reveals  no  mind,  no  purpose,  no  being  behind  itself. 

Now  obviously  to  the  atheist,  if  such  a person 
exists,  or  to  the  convinced  agnostic,  the  Christ  is 
supernatural,  and  as  supernatural,  also  unintelligi- 
ble, because  He  falls  outside  the  only  nature  which 
his  eyes  can  see.  But  then  his  conception  of  nature 
has  been  formed  by  excluding  from  consideration 
important  classes  of  facts  which  really  exist  in 
nature.  For,  first,  the  metaphysician,  with  his 
analysis  of  sensation  and  experience,  discloses  in 
mind,  not  merely  one  product  of  nature,  but  the 
necessary  constituent  of  nature  considered  as  an 
ordered,  knowable  system.  Again,  if  Charles  Dar- 
win and  the  scientific  world  whom  he  represents, 
have  materially  altered,  yet  they  have  not  funda- 
Bientally  impaired,  the  evidences  in  nature  of  divine 

1 See  app.  note  9. 


CHKIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  35 


purpose  or  design,  nor  have  they  touched  the  argu- 
ment (to  many  minds  the  irresistible  argument) 
from  the  beauty  of  nature  to  the  spirituality  of  the 
Being  which  it  reveals.  Once  more,  ethical  inquiry, 
where  it  is  true  to  its  subject-matter,  postulates  an 
absolute  and  superhuman  law  of  righteousness,  with 
which  men  are  as  truly  brought  into  relation  through 
conscience  as  they  are,  through  the  eye,  brought  into 
relation  to  the  objective  reality  of  light;  — postulates 
also  a certainty  of  moral  obligation,  which  has  no 
meaning  unless  man  has  really  a free  will,  however 
limited  and  conditioned  its  freedom.  And  the 
argument  mounts  one  step  higher.  The  universal 
mind  and  divine  righteousness  which  are  disclosed 
in  nature,  are  inseparable  from  the  idea  of  personal- 
ity, for  mind  is  only  conceivable  as  a function,  and 
righteousness  only  as  an  attribute,  of  a person ; and 
personality  is  the  highest  form  in  which  life  is 
known  in  the  universe.  God  then,  or  the  spiritual 
principle  in  nature,  is,  we  believe,  in  some  real 
sense,  personal;  transcending  no  doubt  human  per- 
sonality in  infinite  degree,  yet  at  least  so  truly  per- 
sonal as  that  man  in  virtue  of  his  personality  is  liker 
to  God  than  any  lower  form  of  life.^ 

The  arguments  I have  just  summarized,  I shall  so 
far  take  for  granted  as  to  assume  that  none  of  those 
I am  now  reasoning  with  are,  at  any  rate,  convinced 
agnostics  — men  who  positively  disbelieve  that  God 
can  be  known  to  exist,  or  that  nature’s  order  can  be 
ascertained  to  be  more  than  mechanical.  And  from 

1 See,  however,  further,  p.  128 ; and  on  all  these  arguments,  app. 
note  10. 


36  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

this  point  of  view  I again  ask  the  question,  What 
is  the  testimony  of  nature  in  regard  to  the  super- 
natural Christ? 

II. 

First,  then,  nature  is  a unity  and  an  order.  In 
nature  there  can  he  nothing  detached,  disconnected, 
arbitrary,  as  Aristotle  said  of  old,  like  an  episode  in 
a bad  tragedy.  Secondly,  nature,  on  the  whole, 
represents  a progress,  an  advance.  There  is  a devel- 
opment from  the  inorganic  to  the  organic,  from  the 
animal  to  the  rational  — a progressive  evolution  of 
life.  Thirdly,  this  development,  from  any  but  the 
materialist  point  of  view,  is  a progressive  revelation 
of  God.  Something  of  God  is  manifest  in  the 
mechanical  laws  of  inorganic  structures:  something 
more  in  the  growth  and  flexibility  of  vital  forms  of 
plant  and  animal ; something  more  still  in  the 
reason,  conscience,  love,  personality  of  man.  Now 
from  the  Christian  point  of  view,  this  revelation  of 
God,  this  unfolding  of  divine  qualities,  reaches  a 
climax  in  Christ.  God  has  expressed  in  inorganic 
nature.  His  immutability,  immensity,  power,  wis- 
dom: in  organic  nature  He  has  shown  also  that  He 
is  alive:  in  human  nature  He  has  given  glimpses  of 
His  mind  and  character.  In  Christ  not  one  of  these 
earlier  revelations  is  abrogated:  nay,  they  are  reaf- 
firmed: but  they  reach  a completion  in  the  fuller 
exposition  of  the  divine  character,  the  divine  person- 
ality, the  divine  love. 

Now  if  Jesus  Christ  had  appeared  as  something  in 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  3T 


the  universe  of  things  apart  from  law,  which  could 
come  into  no  order,  which  could  not  be  rationally 
interpreted  as  part  of  the  universal  life  and  in  cor- 
respondence with  its  fundamental  laws,  the  reason 
of  man  would  have  been  rightly  staggered  and  rebel- 
lious. A Christ  inconsistent  with  nature  it  could 
not  have  found  a place  for.  But  if  He  is  super- 
natural, only  in  the  sense  of  transcending,  or  advanc- 
ing upon,  what  nature  exhibits  apart  from  Him, 
while  at  the  same  time  He  appears  in  fundamental 
harmony  with  the  whole,  and  is  incorporating  its 
previous  record,  the  reason  should  experience  no 
such  shock.  Behind  the  veil  of  nature  there  has 
lain  hid  all  along  the  divine  power  and  righteous- 
ness and  character,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  nature  as  it  exists  apart  from  Christ,  exhausts 
the  divine  qualities,  nay,  there  are  manifold  reasons 
to  believe  nature  incomplete.  The  first  volume  of 
the  divine  author  in  fact  postulates  a second.  God 
cannot  be  untrue  to  His  own  principles  as  nature 
exhibits  Him,  but  He  can  advance  upon  the  disclos- 
ure of  them  hitherto  made  in  the  moral  and  physical 
system  of  the  world. 

But  you  will  say  — in  what  real  sense  does  the 
Christ  present  Himself  to  our  imagination  or  mind 
as  completing  a world  which  is  imperfect  without 
Him?  The  answer  to  this  question  will,  I suppose, 
be  most  evident  to  those  who  think  most  of  the 
world  as  God’s  world,  and  who  are  more  particularly 
alive  to  the  revelation  of  His  moral  character.  If 
God  is  righteous,  if  the  highest  moral  characteristics. 


38  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


such  as  goodness  and  love,  express  God  more  ade^ 
quately  than  the  mechanical  motions  of  planets  and 
suns,  or  than  the  life  of  plants  and  animals,  then  we 
are  driven  to  expect  some  fuller  revelation  of  God’s 
being  than  is  offered  us,  or  seems  at  all  likel}'  to  be 
offered  us,  anywhere  apart  from  Jesus  Christ:  then 
the  world  without  Christ,  is  nothing  else  than  an 
imperfect  fragment.  For  certainly  God’s  righteous- 
ness and  justice  find  in  our  present  experience  very 
inadequate  realization.  His  goodness  very  ambiguous 
expression ; and  thus  the  contemplation  of  the  moral 
revelation  of  God  in  nature  begets  in  the  mind  what 
Bishop  Butler  calls,  ‘‘an  implicit  hope  of  somewhat 
further.”  The  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature 
appears  to  be  waiting  for  some  manifestation  not  yet 
given.  And  conversely,  if  personality,  if  character, 
is  the  best  image  of  God  which  nature  affords,  then 
we  are  in  a measure  prepared  for  the  occurrence  of 
an  Incarnation.  There  is  a necessary  kinship  be- 
tween God  and  man,  and  if  human  qualities  are  not 
the  measure  of  the  divine,  yet  they  are  cognate  to 
them.  It  becomes  intelligible  that  God  should  take 
man’s  nature  and  reveal  Himself  in  it,  without  either 
annihilating  our  manhood,  or  compromising  His  God' 
head. 

Christ  then,  I say,  is  the  crown  of  nature:  He  is 
thus  profoundly  natural,  and  to  interpret  the  Christ 
we  postulate  only  those  spiritual  realities,  which  (as 
every  theist  must  admit)  do  in  part  find  expression 
and  in  part  lie  hid  behind  the  veil  of  nature. 

But  then  is  Christ  supernatural  ? The  term  super- 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  39 


natural  is  purely  relative  to  what  at  any  particular 
stage  of  thought  we  mean  by  nature.  Nature  is  a 
progressive  development  of  life,  and  each  new  stage 
of  life  appears  supernatural  from  the  point  of  view 
of  what  lies  below  it.  Moral  life  is  thus  certainly 
supernatural  from  the  point  of  view  of  physical  life. 
The  moral  spirit  in  man  does  indeed  use  the  animal 
organism  as  its  instrument,  and  emerge  out  of  the 
heart  of  physical  development,  but  it  is  supernatural, 
because,  when  it  appears  on  the  scene,  ^ it  is  as  a new 
kind  of  life,  working  by  new  laws  of  its  own,  the 
laws  of  conscience  and  of  choice,  and  exhibiting 
phenomena  — such  as  the  deliberate  recognition  of  a 
divine  law  of  righteousness,  self-judgment,  peni- 
tence, conscious  fellowship  with  God  — which  the 
merely  physical  world  cannot,  considered  by  itself, 
explain  or  account  for.  In  the  same  sense  Christ 
is  supernatural  from  the  point  of  view  of  mere  man, 
because  in  Him  the  divine  Being  who  had  been 
always  at  work,  in  physical  nature  as  “ the  persist- 
ent energy  of  all  things,”  and  in  human  nature  as 
the  rational  light  of  man,  here  assumes  humanity, 
spirit  and  body,  as  the  instrument  through  which 
to  exhibit  with  a new  completeness  and  in  a new 
intensity  His  own  personality  and  character.  The 
same  force  is  at  work  all  through  the  stages  of  life, 
for  the  force  of  all  things  is  God;  only  God  is  pro- 
gressively revealed,  and  at  the  last  with  intensified 
reality  in  Christ  ‘Hhe  life  was  manifested  and  we 
have  seen  it.” 


1 See  app.  note  11. 


40  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


III. 

This  is  the  true  account  of  the  matter,  but  not  yet 
the  complete  account,  for  to  interpret  Christ  we  have 
to  recognize  e^^en  from  the  beginning  the  reality  of 
sin,  as  something  which  appears  nowhere  below  in 
nature  but  first  in  man,  the  rebellion  of  free-wills. 
In  other  words  we  have  to  recognize  — what  it  is 
hard  to  see  how  any  moralist  can  deny  — that  human 
nature,  as  we  have  had  experience  of  it  in  history, 
presents  in  great  measure  a scene  of  moral  ruin,  so 
that  Christ  enters  not  merely  to  consummate  an  order 
but  to  restore  it,  not  to  accomplish  only  but  to 
redeem.  He  is  not  only  ‘‘Christus  consummator” 
but  also  Christus  redemptor.”  This  idea  of  redemp- 
tion will  in  its  turn  appear  natural  in  proportion  as 
it  is  believed,  faintly  or  decisively,  that  God  is  good, 
and  realized  on  the  other  hand  that  man  is  sinful. 
The  more  you  contemplate  from  a moral  point  of 
view  the  condition  of  man,  the  more  luminously 
certain  it  becomes  that  the  Christian  view  of  sin  is 
the  right  one,  so  far  as  that  sin  as  we  know  it  now, 
in  ourselves  and  in  the  world,  is  lawlessness  — the 
violation  of  our  true  nature,  not  its  expression,  the 
taint  in  our  development  and  not  simply  its  necessary 
condition.^  ^‘Our  life  is  a false  nature,”  as  Byron 
cried,  ‘‘’tis  not  in  the  harmony  of  things.”  Grant 
this,  and  you  find  it  surely  credible  on  evidence  that 
the  goodness  of  God  should  have  moved  Him  to 

1 See  Lux  Mundi  (Murray,  1891),  App.  II.  on  The  Christian  doc* 
trine  of  sin. 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  41 


redemption.  Thus  it  comes  about  that  our  readi- 
ness to  believe  in  the  Redeemer  does  in  fact  depend 
upon  the  strength  of  the  impression  made  upon  our 
minds  by  the  sin  of  the  world.  Whatever  impulse 
to  belief  may  come  from  intellectual  or  aesthetic  con- 
siderations, the  primary  force  which  stimulates  to 
belief  is  the  desire  for  righteousness  and  the  sense  of 
sin. 

And  here  we  must  not  fail  to  remind  ourselves  how 
possible  it  is  to  weaken  or  even  to  lose  this  desire  for 
holiness,  and  this  sense  of  sin,  through  diverting  our 
faculties  into  other  channels.  It  is  very  well  known 
how  Darwin  describes  his  own  mind  as  having  be- 
come a kind  of  machine  for  grinding  general  laws 
out  of  large  collections  of  facts,”  with  the  result  of 
producing  “ atrophy  of  that  part  of  the  brain  on  which 
the  higher  tastes  depend.”  ^ What  is  singular  about 
this  confession  is  probably  its  honesty.  But  we  must 
not  hesitate  to  recognize  that  a mind  thus  exclusively 
organized  for  physical  investigation  is  not  a mind 
‘‘  disposed,”  as  St.  Luke  expresses  it,  for  eternal  life.^ 
Christ  would  naturally  seem  to  such  a mind  an  alien 
object.  What  Darwin  is  speaking  of  in  his  own  case 
is  the  atrophy  of  aesthetic,  rather  than  of  moral,  fac- 
ulty. But  a similar  abnormal  atrophy  is  possible  in 
the  case  of  all  disused  faculties  and  in  all  pursuits. 
For  example,  the  pursuits  of  the  priest  and  pastor, 
may  tend  of  themselves  to  disqualify  the  mind  for 

1 See  app.  note  12. 

2 Acts  xiii.  48  'cal  kiricrr^vcrav  oaroi  rjaav  Teray/xevot  et?  aioaviov.  See 
Alford  in  loc* 


42  THE  INCAEHATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

physical  or  historical  inquiry.  At  present,  however, 
we  are  concerned  to  notice  this  only : that  the  atro- 
phy of  a man’s  moral  faculty  is  a probable  event  in 
certain  cases.  Thus  literary  or  classical  studies,  in- 
tense concentration  on  business,  exaggerated  athlet- 
icism, absorption  in  pleasures,  higher  or  lower,  each  of 
these  may  preoccupy  the  whole  man,  stunting  and 
overgrowing  the  moral  faculties,  making  the  Christ 
seem  a remote  figure,  the  crucifix  an  unmeaning  and 
disagreeable  object,  the  vocabulary  of  Christianity 
unnecessary  and  unreal.  But  it  needs  only  to  re- 
kindle in  a man  the  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness, in  himself  or  in  the  world,  in  order  to  bring 
Christ  near  to  him,  and  to  teach  him  to  look  upon 
His  person  with  different  eyes.  Whatever  in  fact  re- 
awakens in  him  the  sense  of  God  and  eternity  gives 
him  faculties  to  acknowledge  Christ.  It  may  be  any 
experience  which  stirs  the  depths  of  his  being,  possi- 
bly the  death  of  some  one  with  whom  his  life  was 
bound  up,  and  the  sense  which  comes  with  it  of  the 
fragmentariness  and  incompleteness  of  the  world. 
It  may  be  also  something  less  personal  to  himself. 
For  example,  suppose  a man  to  devote  himself  to  the 
bettering  of  social  conditions:  suppose  him  so  far 
Christian  — and  it  is  a great  way  on  the  road  — as  to 
realize  that  he  is  his  brother’s  keeper  and  must  go 
out  to  bear  his  share  of  the  world’s  burden.  Such  an 
one  after  a few  years’  work  will  surely  be  impressed 
with  the  truth  that,  much  as  can  be  done  by  improved 
laws,  improved  social  adjustment,  improved  organiza- 
tion, to  remedy  the  evils  under  which  society  groans, 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  4S 

the  heart  of  the  matter  lies  in  character.  The  obsta- 
cles to  progress  in  every  class  are  within  rather  than 
without;  they  lie  in  jealousy,  in  suspicion,  in  self 
assertion,  in  lust,  in  dishonesty,  in  carelessness  — in 
a word  in  sin.  In  sin,  in  the  omnipresent  fact  of  sin, 
there  is  the  evil.  In  redemption,  redemption  from  sin, 
there  is  the  central  and  fundamental  remedy  and  the 
thing  supremely  needful.  More  and  more,  behind 
legislator,  instructor,  economist,  agitator,  there  dawni 
upon  the  horizon  of  the  true  reformer,  to  refresh  his 
exhausted  brain,  to  reinvigorate  his  desponding  heart, 
the  true  emancipator  of  man,  his  Redeemer,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  whose  remedies  alone  are  adequate  to  hu- 
man ills,  because  He  gauges  so  profoundly,  so  accu- 
rately the  nature  and  seat  of  man’s  disease,  because 
He  deals  with  men  as  individual  characters,  and  bases 
the  regeneration  of  society  on  the  conversion  and  re- 
newal of  men.  In  a word,  brethren,  the  Son  of  man 
will  seem  in  the  highest  sense  natural  to  you  in  pro- 
portion as  you  are  human,  in  proportion,  that  is,  as 
what  you  are  in  contact  with  is  not  merely  things  or 
laws  or  minds  but  persons,  not  problems  merely  but 
characters. 

Let  me  sum  up  briefly  my  positive  contention: 
it  is  that  Christ  is  supernatural,  if  you  mean  by  this 
that  He  transcends  all  the  manifested  natures,  and  is 
not  explicable  out  of  their  elements.  But  if  He  is 
supernatural  He  is  also  natural.  Nature  as  a whole, 
moral  and  physical,  demands  Him  to  accomplish  its 
yearnings  and  to  restore  its  order.  Nor  is  this  any 
other  position  than  that  suggested  long  ago  in  the 


44  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD, 

profound  words  of  Bishop  Butler:  “Persons’  notions 
of  what  is  natural  will  be  enlarged  in  proportion  to 
their  greater  knowledge  of  the  works  of  God  and  the 
dispensations  of  His  providence.  Nor  is  there  any 
absurdity  in  supposing,  that  there  may  be  many 
beings  in  the  universe,  whose  capacities  and  knowl- 
edge and  views  may  be  so  extensive  as  that  the  whole 
Christian  dispensation  may  to  them  appear  natural.”  ^ 


IV. 


To  the  view  of  the  relation  of  Christ  to  nature 
which  I have  been  trying  to  express,  there  would  be, 
I suppose,  three  main  objections. 

First,  it  would  be  asked,  “ how  is  it  then  that  in 
popular  Christianity  the  Redeemer  and  His  work 
have  been  so  much  isolated  from  nature,  and  indeed 
put  into  antagonism  to  it  ? ” It  is  partly  because  in 
the  mind  of  Christian  preachers  or  their  hearers  there 
has  been  a confusion  between  “ nature,”  that  is,  the 
ordered  world  and  “ nature  ” in  the  sense  of  our  hu- 
man nature  as  it  exists  in  a state  of  sin : between  the 
world  as  God’s  creation,  and  “the  world  ” of  human 
society  considered  as  “refusing  to  have  God  in  its 
knowledge.”  But  in  theology  worthy  of  the  name, 
the  sequence  and  fundamental  unity  of  nature  and 
grace,  of  creation  and  redemption,  are  always  insisted 
upon.  2 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  will 

1 Analogy^  Pt.  I.  ch.  1 ad  fin, 

2 See,  in  justification  of  the  following  paragraphs,  app.  note  13. 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  45 


not  allow  US  to  separate  the  two  parts  of  the  self-man- 
ifestation of  God.  I am  not  for  the  moment  con- 
cerned to  inquire  how  these  first  Christian  teachers 
got  at  their  conception  of  the  Word  or  Son  of  God 
as  the  creator  no  less  than  the  redeemer.  But  cer- 
tainly St.  Paul  and  St.  John  do  teach  that  the  Son  ol 
God  who  redeems  is  also  the  creator,  and  that  His 
mediation  in  grace  is  strictly  on  the  lines  of  His  ear- 
lier mediation  in  nature. 

He  is,  according  to  those  theologians  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  author  of  the  universe,  and  He  abides 
in  all  His  creation  as  its  principle  of  cohesion.  He 
is  the  ground  of  its  progress  and  the  light  of  its  ra- 
tional members.  Finally  He  is  the  goal  of  all  its 
movements.  When  sin  perverted  His  creation  in 
part.  He  was  not  baffled  by  its  ravages,  but  came  out 
again  to  redeem,  and  in  redeeming  to  consummate 
His  creation,  by  the  same  method  as  characterized 
His  previous  working.  By  His  Incarnation  He  in- 
augurated a kingdom  of  redemption  in  the  heart  of 
the  old  kingdom  of  nature.  Again  He  abides  in  that 
new  creation  as  the  inner  principle  of  its  life.  Again 
He  bears  along  this  new  work,  and  with  it  the  old 
work  which  it  completes,  to  its  final  goal  in  Himself. 
In  creation  and  in  redemption  He  is  author  and  in- 
herent life,  and  final  cause. 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  gives 
the  secure  basis  for  a conception  of  order  in  nature. 
Indeed  the  idea  of  order  in  nature  came  to  men’s 
minds  at  the  first  from  a religious  or  philosophical 
rather  than  a scientific  point  of  view,  in  part  among 


46  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

the  Hebrews  and  more  emphatically  among  the 
Greeks.  It  had  been  appropriated  by  Christianity 
in  its  cradle  as  part  of  its  heritage  from  the  fusion 
of  Greek  and  Jewish  thought;  it  is  developed  in  its 
full  significance  by  the  Greek  Fathers.  Their  teach- 
ing claims  our  notice  at  this  point  in  three  particulars. 

(1)  They  insist  on  the  unity  of  God’s  work  in  na- 
ture and  in  grace.  The  Incarnation  is  on  the  lines 
of  God’s  inherence  in  nature.  No  one,  they  argue, 
who  believes  that  God  is  living  and  manifesting  Him- 
self in  the  world,  can  reasonably  repudiate  His  inten- 
sified presence  in  Christ.  If  the  Word  or  Son  reveals 
God  through  the  Incarnation,  He  has  previously  re- 
vealed Him  in  the  body  of  nature  through  its  beauty, 
its  order,  its  power.  This  belief  in  fact  gave  many 
of  the  early  Christians  that  fresh  delight  in  nature 
for  its  own  sake,  which  Humboldt  the  naturalist 
rightly  recognizes  as  the  distinctive  merit  of  the 
Christian  Fathers  among  ancient  writers. 

(2)  They  were  very  emphatic  as  to  the  necessary 
universality  of  order  and  law.  When,  for  instance, 
Gregory  of  Neo-Csesareais  describing  Origen’s  method 
in  training  his  pupils,  he  explains  how  after  he  had 
taken  them  through  a course  of  “ logic  ” and  dia- 
lectic,” by  which  he  aimed  at  securing  the  accurate 
and  truthful  use  of  reason  and  language,  he  led  them 
on  to  physiology  or  the  study  of  nature.  And  here 
he  made  it  his  object  to  substitute  for  the  merely 
irrational  wonder  and  terror  at  phenomena  the  ra- 
tional delight  in  order  and  system.  It  would  be  very 
easy  to  multiply  quotations  to  illustrate  the  patristic 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  47 


appreciation  of  the  divine  principle  of  law;  but  in 
fact,  though  modern  science  has  an  incomparably 
clearer  view  of  the  method  of  natural  operations  — 
though  it  thus  gives  to  the  idea  of  law  a far  more 
accurate  content,  — modern  scientific  men  themselves 
cannot  hold  the  conception  of  the  necessary  order  of 
the  world  more  strongly  than  some  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian teachers.  Thus  when  they  treat  of  miracles,  they 
often  teach  us  that  even  miracles  must  not  be  lawless, 
but  in  harmony  with  nature’s  fundamental  law. 

(3)  In  the  moral  and  intellectual  region,  Greek 
theologians  maintain  the  position  that  the  Incarna- 
tion gathers  into  one  and  completes  previous  work- 
ings of  God  in  the  human  mind  and  conscience. 
Everywhere  the  same  light  had  been  lightening 
every  man ; everywhere  the  same  Son  had  been  in  a 
measure  revealing  the  Father ; everywhere  where 
men  lived  by  right  reason,  they  lived  by  Christ,  and 
were  the  friends  of  Christ ; philosophy  was  thus  to 
the  Greeks,  as  the  Law  to  the  Jews,  a divine  prepa- 
ration for  Him  who  was  to  come.  The  Bible  is  in 
one  respect  distinguished  from  other  literature,  be- 
cause the  noble  truths  which  exist  everywhere  as 
scattered  fragments,  are  there  to  be  found  purified 
and  centralized,  even  as  the  silver  which  from  the 
earth  is  tried,  and  purified  seven  times  in  the  fire. 

We  know  now-a-days  much  more  about  comparative 
morality  and  religion,  about  the  varieties  and  unities 
of  religious  beliefs  among  all  nations.  We  are  thus 
in  a position  to  exhibit  much  more  exactly  how 
Christianity  unifies  the  truths  which  .appeal  to  Jew 


48  THE  INCAENATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

and  to  Greek,  to  Mohammedan  and  Buddhist  and  Brah- 
min. But  the  idea  of  Christianity  as  superseding  all 
other  religions,  not  by  excluding  but  by  including 
the  elements  of  truth  which  each  contains,  would  be 
an  idea  thoroughly  in  accordance  with  the  deeper 
thoughts  of  Greek  Christian  teachers  in  the  first  age. 
It  militates  in  no  way  against  the  truth  of  the  special 
vocation  in  religion  assigned  to  Israel  among  ancient 
nations.  In  accordance  with  this  view  other  masters 
would  be  regarded  as  hostile  to  Christ,  only  when 
they  taught  what  was  positively  noxious,  or  when 
they  began  to  enter  into  rivalry  with  Him ; as  twi- 
light is  darkness,  when  it  is  once  brought  into  com- 
parison with  light.  If  then  we  speak  of  the  Incar- 
nation as  the  crown  of  natural  development  in  the 
universe,  and  in  accordance  with  its  law,  we  are  not 
using  a language  new  to  Christianity.  Indeed  it 
could  hardly  have  been  otherwise  than  that  the 
church  teachers  should  have  expected  to  discover 
law  throughout  all  creation ; because,  in  Hooker’s 
language,  The  being  of  God  is  a kind  of  law  to  His 
working,”  and  the  being  of  God  as  Christians  believe, 
is  an  eternal  process  according  to  necessary  law. 

V. 

The  second  objection  to  our  position  would  be  on 
the  score  of  miracles.  “ Nature,”  it  would  be  said, 
does  in  fact  bear  witness  against  Christ  on  account 
of  His  miracles,  for  a miracle  is  a supposed  event, 
which  is  described  as  inconsistent  with  nature,  or  a 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  49 


violation  of  natural  laws,  and  as  such  it  is  contrary 
to  order,  and  not  its  perfection.”  This  objection  is 
constantly  heard,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  a good 
deal  of  language  used  on  the  Christian  side  has  gone 
to  justify  it,  but  I cannot  but  hope,  that  the  prin- 
ciples to  which  I have  been  endeavouring  in  this 
lecture  to  gain  your  assent  will  be  seen  to  carry  us 
most  of  the  way  — I do  not  say  to  the  acceptance  of 
miracles,  for  that  is  a matter  of  evidence  in  each  par- 
ticular case,  but  to  a position  from  which  miracle  can 
be  regarded  as  a rational  and  credible  element  in  the 
revelation  of  the  Christ.^  For  if  we  admit  on  the 
one  hand  that  the  force  in  nature  is  the  will  of  a 
God,  who  through  the  whole  process  of  the  universe 
has  been  working  up  to  a moral  product  in  the  char- 
acter of  man,  and  if  we  admit  on  the  other  hand  that 
there  is  such  a thing  as  sin  in  humanity  which  has 
disturbed  the  divine  order  of  the  world  and  made  it 
necessary  for  God  to  come  forth  for  the  restoration 
of  His  own  creation ; if  we  admit  these  two  positions 
we  have  already  admitted  by  implication  the  reason- 
ableness of  miracle.  For  miracle  depends  on  the  one 
side  on  God’s  character,  on  the  other  side  on  the 
consequences  of  man’s  sin. 

What  is  a miracle?  It  is  an  event  in  physical 
nature  which  makes  unmistakably  plain  the  presence 
and  direct  action  of  God  working  for  a moral  end. 
God  is  always  present  and  working  in  nature,  and 
men  were  meant  to  recognize  Him  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  events,  and  to  praise  Him  as  they  recog- 

1 See  app.  note  14. 


50  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


nized  Him.  But  in  fact  man’s  sin  has  blinded  his 
spiritual  eye,  he  has  lost  the  power  of  seeing  behind 
the  physical  order;  the  very  prevalence  of  law  in 
nature,  which  is  its  perfection,  has  led  to  God  being 
forgotten.  His  power  depreciated.  His  presence  denied. 
In  a miracle  then,  or  what  scripture  calls  a “ sign,” 
God  so  works,  that  man  cannot  but  notice  a presence 
which  is  not  blind  force,  but  personal  will.  Thus 
God  violates  the  customary  method  of  His  action, 
He  breaks  into  the  common  order  of  events,  in  order 
to  manifest  the  real  meaning  of  nature,  and  make 
men  alive  to  the  true  character  of  the  order,  which 
their  eyes  behold.  Miracles  are  God’s  protests  against 
man’s  blindness  to  Himself,  protests  in  which  He 
violates  a superficial  uniformity  in  the  interests  of 
deeper  law.  An  example  will  make  this  plain.  The 
death  of  Jesus  Christ  occurred  in  the  ordinary 
sequence  of  physical  and  social  law.  Granted  social 
and  moral  conditions,  such  as  in  fact  existed  in 
Judaea  when  our  Lord  came  into  it,  and  it  could 
not  have  been  but  that  Christ  should  be  rejected,  and 
if  rejected  crucified.  God  did  not  cause  the  death  of 
Christ  by  any  intervention.  He  simply  did  not  spare 
His  only  begotten  Son.  He  let  circumstances  operate, 
and  they  operated  to  slay  Him.  But  such  an  event  as 
the  crucifixion  of  the  Son  of  God,  though  it  came  in  the 
physical  order,  did  not  represent  the  real  divine  order 
of  the  world,  it  was  only  possible  because  of  the 
monstrous  anomaly  of  sin.  The  miracle  of  the  resur- 
rection, on  the  other  hand,  does  break  into  the  physi- 
cal order : God  bares  His  arm,  and  shows  His  life- 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  51 


giving  presence  and  will.  But  why  ? Only  to  vindi- 
cate, at  the  central  crisis,  the  real  order  of  the  world, 
its  fundamental  underlying  law.  There  is  a disturb- 
ance, then,  of  the  superficial  order  in  the  interests  of 
the  deeper,  the  rational  order.  Now  this  (the  ancient 
view  of  miracles)  can  only  be  objected  to,  either  on 
. the  ground  of  defective  evidence,  with  which  we 
are  not  yet  concerned;  or,  on  the  ground  that  the 
operator  in  nature  is  a force  and  not  a person.  If 
God  is  personal,  if  His  being  is  better  expressed  in 
human  will  and  character  than  in  mechanical  motion 
and  unconscious  life,  miracles  with  adequate  cause 
are  neither  impossible  nor  unnatural.  It  is  blind 
instinct  which  works  on  in  monotonous  uniformity 
where  conditions  are  exceptional.  It  is  rational  char- 
acter which  from  time  to  time  will  violate  uniformity 
in  the  interest  of  rational  consistency. 

These  considerations  do  not  certainly  leave  us  in 
the  attitude  of  welcoming  all  miracles  indiscrimi- 
nately. The  knowledge  of  God,  which  we  gain  from 
nature  and  conscience,  gives  us  certain  criteria  which 
we  cannot  but  apply.  Thus  we  could  not  see  the 
hand  of  God  in  portents  appealing  simply  to  a bar- 
baric love  of  lawless  power  — for  God  is  a God  of 
order : or  in  miracles  unworthy  of  God’s  character  — 
for  He  is  holy  and  just  and  good ; or  in  miracles 
calculated  to  subvert  that  moral  discipline  which  lies 
in  ‘‘  enduring  as  seeing  Him  who  is  invisible.”  But 
the  considerations  we  have  been  entertaining  do  ena- 
ble us  to  attach  a rational  meaning  to  miracles, 
especially  at  great  initiating  moments  in  God’s  reve- 


52  THE  INCABNATION  OF  THE  SOiT  OF  GOD. 


lation  or  yindication  of  Himself  to  man ; and,  in  par- 
ticular they  lead  us  far  towards  the  acceptance  of 
miracles  such  as  are  presented  to  us  in  connection 
with  Jesus  Christ. 

What  has  just  been  said  represents  the  ancient, 
perhaps  the  accepted,  rationale  of  miracles ; as  a gen- 
eral theory  it  seems  to  be  valid  and  to  hold  its 
ground ; but  so  far  as  we  are  concerned  simply  with 
the  miraculous  works  of  Christ  there  is  a prior,  and 
to  many  minds  a more  satisfying,  consideration  which 
we  must  entertain,  a consideration  calculated  to 
remove  from  miracles  in  His  case  the  appearance  of 
being  abnormal  or  exceptional  events. 

The  incarnate  Son  of  God  could  not  have  been 
otherwise  than,  to  our  view,  miraculous.  Formerly 
men  spoke  of  the  uniformity  of  nature  as  our  intui- 
tive conviction  that  the  future  will  resemble  the 
past.”  Now  we  have  learnt  to  view  nature  as  a 
progressive  order,  and  we  know  that  it  admits  of 
new  departures,  of  moments  when  a fresh  level  seems 
to  be  won,  and  a fresh  sort  of  product  begins  to  ex- 
hibit new  phenomena.  Thus  when  in  the  midst  of 
the  inorganic  world,  the  germ  of  organic  life  first 
appeared,  however  you  account  for  it,  the  future  did 
not  resemble  the  past.  Organic  growth,  unknown 
before,  became  a fact.  Once  again,  when  rational 
life  appeared,  when  men  first  talked  and  planned, 
and  learnt  by  experience,  and  developed  civilization, 
it  was  a new  thing,  and  the  future  in  consequence 
did  not  resemble  the  past ; a new  nature  or  kind  of 
life  had  begun  to  exhibit  new  phenomena  in  accord- 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  53 


ance  with  new  law.  Now  on  the  Christian  hypothe- 
sis Christ  is  a new  nature.  He  is  the  creative  ‘‘Word 
made  flesh.”  If  so,  it  is  to  be  expected  that,  as  a 
new  kind  of  nature.  He  will  exhibit  new  phenomena. 
A new  vital  energy  will  radiate  from  Him,  for  the 
very  springs  of  the  universal  life  are  in  Him.  As  in 
human  nature  the  material  body  is  seen  for  the  first 
time  more  or  less  adapting  itself  to  spiritual  ends,  as 
the  organ  of  a spiritual  being,  so  in  Christ  we  should 
expect  the  material  body  to  exhibit  a far  higher 
degree  of  this  subserviency  to  spirit.  And  this,  in 
fact,  is  what  appears  to  be  the  case ; a new  energy 
of  spirit  is  seen  in  Him  controlling  the  material 
forces.  It  is  not  that  the  old  laws  are  either  violated 
or  suspended.  All  natural  processes  go  on,  but  they 
.are  counteracted  or  inter-acted  by  a new  kind  of 
nature  working  by  a new  law  with  a new  power. 
Thus  Christ’s  miracles  in  fact  appear  as  laws  of  His 
nature : there  is  a healing  power  or  “ virtue  ” which 
goes  out  from  Him,  occasionally  even  without  any 
special  action  of  His  will,  as  when  He  perceived  that 
some  one  had  touched  Him,  for  virtue  had  gone  out 
of  Him.i  Miracles  are  described  as  “ His  works,”  ^ 
they  are  the  proper  phenomena  of  His  person.  In 
fact,  the  more  we  considered  the  character  of  the 
personality  of  Jesus,  the  more  natural  do  miracles 
appear  in  His  case ; they  are  not  arbitrary  portents, 
but  appropriate  phenomena.  Matthew  Arnold  once 
suggested,  as  against  the  evidential  power  supposed 

1 St.  Luke  viii.  46  ; St.  Mark  v.  30 ; cf.  St.  Luke  iv.  14,  vi.  19. 

* St.  John  vii.  3,  x.  38,  xiv.  11. 


54  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


to  belong  to  miracles,  that  “ if  he  could  change  the 
pen  with  which  he  wrote  into  a pen-wiper,  he  would 
not  make  what  he  wrote  any  the  truer,  or  more 
convincing.”  ^ But  such  a suggestion,  as  directed 
against  the  miracles  of  Christ,  wholly  misses  the 
point.  For  certainly  Christ’s  miracles  are  not  mean- 
ingless and  detached  portents,  they  are  ‘‘  redemptive 
acts  ” ; they  are  evidential  because  they  give  to  the 
eye,  as  object-lessons,  exactly  that  same  instruction 
in  mercy  and  judgment  which  the  words  of  our  Lord 
teach  to  the  ear.  The  moral  miracle  of  forgiveness 
is  interpreted  by  the  physical  miracle  of  the  renewal 
of  vital  power.  ‘^That  ye  may  know  that  the  Son 
of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (then 
saith  He  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy).  Arise,  and  take  up 
thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thy  house.”  And  we  may  still 
ask,  “Whether  is  easier,  to  say.  Thy  sins  are  for- 
given ; or  to  say.  Arise,  and  walk.”  Depend  upon 
it,  the  more  you  contemplate  the  personality  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  His  moral  authority  and  purpose, 
the  more  you  will  find  that  His  miracles  are  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  His  being,  “ in  rational  sequence,” 
to  use  an  expression  of  St.  Athanasius,^  with  the 
character  of  His  person  and  mission.  It  is  not  that 
the  miracles  prove  the  doctrine  or  that  the  doctrine 
makes  credible  the  miracles.  It  is  rather  that  as 
parts  of  one  whole  they  cohere  as  soul  and  body. 
True,  Christ  depreciated  miracles  in  comparison  to 

'^Literature  and  Dogma  (Smith,  Elder  and  Co.  1873),  p.  128;  cf. 
Bruce,  Chief  Aim  of  Revelation.  (Hodder  and  Stoughton,  1881), 
ch.  iv. 

2 De  Incarn.  31, 


CHEIST  SUPERNATUEAL  YET  NATURAL.  65 


teaching.  Believe  me,”  He  said,  that  is.  My  person, 
Myself,  ‘‘or  else  believe  me  for  the  very  works’ 
sake.”  ^ He  puts  the  miracles  below  the  person. 
Still  it  is  hardly  conceivable  how  without  miracles 
His  revelation  of  Himself  could  have  been  made. 
Without  the  resurrection  His  death,  instead  of  being 
an  encouragement  to  faith,  would  have  been  the 
supreme  obstacle  to  it.  With  the  resurrection  it 
gives  us  the  final  and  adequate  evidence  of  what 
faith  demands  — namely,  that  there  is  only  one  ulti- 
mate lordship  in  matter  and  spirit,  and  that  the  whole 
universe  at  the  last  resort  subserves  a divine  and 
moral  purpose. 


VI. 

The  last  objection  which  I must  very  briefly  con- 
sider may  be  expressed  thus  : “ If  at  a certain  moment 
in  the  world’s  development,  a new  type  of  being  had 
appeared,  such  as  you  describe,  an  incarnation  of  God 
in  humanity,  and  had  propagated  itself  by  methods 
corresponding  to  its  nature  — so  that  the  Christ-life 
was  at  the  present  moment  a fact  among  us,  like 
plant,  or  animal,  or  man,  concordant  with  the  rest, 
and  yet  distinct,  as  an  advance  upon  them  — all  would 
be  plain,  and  we  should  no  more  urge  objections 
against  the  naturalness  of  Christ  than  against  that  of 
the  plant  or  man.  It  is  the  isolation  of  the  Christ 
which  constitutes  His  inconsistency  with  nature.  If, 
as  you  would  urge.  His  appearance  is  in  continuity 


1 St.  John  xiv.  11. 


66  THE  INCAKNATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

with  what  preceded  it,  yet  it  has  no  persistence  ; the 
Christ-nature  does  not  become  part  of  permanent 
experience.  It  is  the  isolated  Christ  which  is  to  us 
so  incredible.” 

Now,  so  far  as  this  objection  rests  on  the  fact  that 
Christ  is  out  of  the  order  of  gradual  development, 
and  leaves  us  looking  backwards  for  the  highest  point 
of  attainment,  it  is  met  by  the  consideration  that  de- 
velopment on  the  moral  and  intellectual  level  is  not 
generally  a gradual  progress.  Personality  has  some- 
thing in  it  always  incommunicable.  The  great  gen- 
iuses who  inaugurate  epochs  in  human  history  vanish 
and  leave  no  successors  worthy  of  them ; we  are  in 
fact  often  in  the  position  of  men  looking  backwards 
for  our  ideals.  The  poetry  of  Homer,  the  statues  of 
Phidias  and  Praxiteles,  the  painting  of  the  Italian 
Renaissance,  the  dramas  of  Shakespeare,  represent 
levels  once  attained  and  not  again.  In  religion  St. 
Francis  is  greater  than  the  Franciscans,  Gautama 
than  the  Buddhists.  Jesus  Christ  even  on  the  hu- 
manitarian estimate  remains  unique.  The  history  of 
religious  movements  is,  in  fact,  very  generally  the 
history  of  a continuous  decline,  through  a long  period 
of  years,  from  the  level  attained  by  a founder  or  a 
reformer.  Thus  we  are  not  to  look  for  steady  advance 
or  persistent  realization  in  moral  and  spiritual  mat- 
ters. Moreover  in  regard  to  Jesus  Christ,  His  unique 
greatness  is  inseparable  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  If 
it  is  in  accordance  with  the  true  nature  of  things  that 
God  should  manifest  at  last,  not  His  attributes  only, 


CHRIST  SUPERNATURAL  YET  NATURAL.  57 


but  His  personality,  — if  this  is  the  crown  of  univer- 
sal development  — then  that  personality  whenever 
manifested  must  remain  supreme.  “The  Word  made 
flesh  ” must  be  the  highest  thing  possible  in  all  crea- 
tion. There  can  be  no  second.  No  relation  of  God  to 
the  creatures,  or  of  the  creatures  to  God,  can  be  even 
conceived  of  equal  to  that  which  is  realized  in  Him. 
The  most  that  He  can  do  is  to  impart  to  other  men 
for  their  perfecting  and  redeeming  a share  in  His 
Divine  Sonship;  and  this  He  has  done.  Thus,  if 
Christ  is  truly  unique,  if  by  the  necessities  of  the 
case  there  cannot  be  more  than  one  incarnate  Son, 
yet  He  is  not  isolated.  He  has  set  at  work  a new 
development,  which  is  the  movement  of  the  redeemed 
humanity.  He  has  left  this  world,  indeed,  for  man- 
hood in  the  process  of  its  perfecting  breaks  through 
the  boundaries  of  this  world  into  the  wider  sphere  of 
eternity,  and  the  heavens  must  receive  Him  “ until 
the  times  of  restoration  of  all  things  ” : but  he  is  still 
spiritually  present  and  operative  in  the  world. 

I must  leave  this  thought  for  development  until 
the  last  lecture,  only  let  me  say  that  we  believe  that 
when  the  slow-working  forces  of  the  Incarnation  have 
borne  their  perfect  fruit,  it  is  not  Christ  the  Head 
alone,  who  will  be  seen  to  crown  and  justify  the 
whole  development  of  the  universe,  but  Christ  as  the 
centre  of  the  redeemed  humanity,  the  Head  with 
the  body,  the  Bridegroom  with  the  bride ; and  things 
in  heaven  and  things  in  earth  and  things  under  the 
earth  shall  acknowledge  in  that  triumphant  society 
the  consummation  of  the  whole  world’s  destiny. 


■58  THE  IHCAKHATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

It  may  have  been  irksome  to  some  to  be  asked  to 
deal,  as  we  have  been  dealing  more  or  less  in  this 
lecture,  with  abstract  ideas  and  d 'priori  credibilities. 
Opponents  of  Christianity  from  the  side  of  science 
may  make  Professor  Huxley  their  mouth-piece,^  to 
protest  that  they  take  exception  to  miracles  solely  on 
the  ground  of  evidence,  not  at  all  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  antecedently  incredible.  But  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  objections  to  miracles  do  still  in  a major- 
ity of  cases  rest  largely  upon  negative  presumptions, 
the  serious  consideration  of  which  it  would  not  have 
been  possible  to  omit.  On  the  basis  of  such  consid- 
eration we  can  approach  more  freely  the  examination 
of  the  evidence. 

Meanwhile  let  me  summarize  my  preliminary  con- 
tention. Read,  then,  I would  say;  the  book  of  nature 
which  is  God’s  book,  read  especially  its  later  chapters, 
when  moral  beings  appear  upon  the  scene ; you  find 
it  a plot  without  a denoument^  a complication  without 
a solution,  a first  volume  which  demands  a second. 
Study  the  Christ.  He  appears  as  the  second  volume 
of  the  divine  word,  in  which  the  threads  are  being 
disentangled.  The  justifying  principle  emerges,  the 
lines  of  incident  are  seen  working  towards  a solution, 
the  whole  becomes  intelligible  and  full  of  hope.  But 
the  eye  is  still  carried  forward,  there  is  a third  vol- 
ume yet  expected.  It  is  to  contain  the  revelation 
of  the  glory,”  the  ‘‘  far-off  divine  event  to  which  the 
whole  creation  moves.” 


1 See  app.  note  15. 


LECTURE  III. 

THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL. 

Of  the  men  therefore  which  have  companied  with  us  all  the  time  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  went  out  among  us,  beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John^  unto  the  day  that  he  was  received  up  from  uSy 
of  these  must  one  become  a witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection.  — 
Acts  i.  21,  22. 

There  is  an  admirable  scene  in  Mrs.  Gaskell’s 
Mary  Barton.^  which  probably  holds  a permanent 
place  in  the  memory  of  many  of  ns.  It  is  where  the 
sailor  Will  Wilson  is  telling  tales  of  his  experiences  at 
sea  to  Job  Legh,  the  self-taught  naturalist,  in  the  Man- 
chester cottage.  He  tells  him  with  the  same  simplic- 
ity of  assurance  how  his  party  saw  a mermaid,  and 
how  he  saw  a flying-fish,  and  he  is  angry  because  the 
old  man,  who  knows  what  belongs  to  nature  and 
what  does  not,  treats  his  first  story  with  contempt, 
and  welcomes  his  second  with  enthusiastic  accept- 
ance. ‘‘You  will  credit  me,”  he  complains,  “when  I 
say  I have  seen  a creature  half-fish,  half -bird,  and  you 
won’t  credit  me  when  I say  there  are  such  beasts  as 
mermaids,  half-man  and  half -fish ; to  me  one  is  just 
as  strange  as  the  other.” 

I. 

We  are  to  consider  to-day  the  witness  of  history  to 
our  Christian  faith,  and  this  conversation  may  serve 

69 


60  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

to  illustrate  at  starting  the  limits,  which  ordinarily 
exist,  to  the  power  of  external  testimony  in  carrying 
conviction.  The  witness  which  suffices  to  prove  the 
flying-fish  does  not  suffice  to  prove  the  mermaid. 
To  make  even  excellent  testimony  convincing  it 
must  be  able  to  appeal  to  an  antecedent  sense  of 
probability  in  the  mind  of  the  recipient.  Where  a 
supposed  event,  for  which  witness  is  offered,  can  find 
no  point  of  cohesion  with  our  general  sense  of  what 
is  credible,  we  tend  all  of  us  to  act  upon  Hume’s 
canon,  and  to  suppose  that  it  is  more  probable  that 
the  witness  was  mistaken  than  that  the  event  hap- 
pened.^ Testimony  is  not  like  mathematical  demon- 
stration. Thus,  in  the  case  of  Christianity,  the  mere 
external  testimony  of  history  will  not  produce  con- 
viction that  Jesus  Christ  was  really  raised  from  the 
dead  the  third  day,  unless  the  man  who  is  to  be  con- 
vinced is  responsive  to  the  idea  of  redemption,  and 
alive  to  the  place  which  the  resurrection  holds  in  it. 
He  will  not  believe  the  Christian  witness,  unless  he 
is  at  home  with  the  Christian  spirit.  On  the  other 
hand,  Christian  faith  is  meant  to  depend  upon  testi- 
mony, and  a large  part  of  our  intellectual  duty,  in 
the  case  of  Christianity,  as  also  in  inquiries  which 
have  nothing  to  do  with  religion,  lies  in  submitting 
ourselves  to  evidence. 

Real  submission  of  mind  to  good  evidence,  contem- 
porary or  historical,  is  not  so  common  a quality  as  is 
sometimes  supposed.  Very  many  men  are  mentally 
preoccupied  with  their  own  ideas  ; they  are  full  of 
1 See  app.  note  16. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  61 

prejudices : they  see  in  experience,  and  welcome  in 
evidence,  only  what  they  want  to  believe.  It  is  the 
few  who  are  real  observers,  who  know  the  difference 
between  a fact  and  a fancy,  and  when  they  are  face 
to  face  with  a fact  allow  it  to  mould  and  control 
their  ideas.  Undoubtedly  the  tendency  to  be  too 
subjective  in  the  estimate  of  evidence,  needs  to  be 
jealously  watched  and  kept  in  check.  It  is  very 
apparent  in  the  intellects  of  many  of  the  great  Ger- 
mans, and  their  followers  in  their  own  country  and 
in  England  — witness  Dr.  Martineau’s  recent  treat- 
ment of  the  Gospel  story.  It  is  equally  apparent  on 
the  other  hand  in  so  un-German  a mind  as  that  of  the 
late  Cardinal  Newman.  In  his  essay  on  Ecclesiastical 
Miracles,  for  instance,  the  d priori  faculty,  the  ^‘illa- 
tive sense,”  is  allowed  almost  to  run  riot,  and  destroy 
the  distinction  between  a fact  and  an  idea,  between 
what  is  historical,  and  what  is  supposed  to  be  appro- 
priate.^ Passing  behind  the  work  of  our  own  time, 
we  may  enter  the  Bodleian  Library  and  scan  long 
rows  of  tomes  — shall  we  say  in  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory ? — to  find  them  suggest  nothing  so  much  as  the 
melancholy  reflection  how  easily  boundless  industry 
and  rich  capacity  can  be  rendered  fruitless  by  the 
wilfulness  which  will  not  be  true  to  the  evidence. 
The  fact  is  that  in  order  to  estimate  rightly  the  func- 
tion of  external  evidence  in  producing  conviction,  it 
is  necessary  to  pay  impartial  regard  to  two  opposite 
elements  of  truth.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  absurd  to 
deny  the  necessity  for  presuppositions  in  accepting 
1 See  app.  note  17. 


62  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

evidence  — absurd  to  pretend  that,  in  matters  affect* 
ing  us  nearly,  we  can  possibly  annihilate  the  wish  to 
believe  or  to  disbelieve ; indeed  this  sort  of  wish  has 
been  actually  the  great  stimulus  to  inquiry  of  all 
sorts.  On  the  other  hand  we  must  recognize  the 
obligation,  and  courageously  encourage  in  ourselves 
the  tendency,  to  submit  simply  to  evidence.  Nor  are 
we  in  this  respect  without  great  hopes  for  the  future. 
There  is,  not  least  among  Christians  of  our  own  coun- 
try and  our  own  communion,  an  increasing  spirit  of 
candour,  an  increasing  desire  to  know  the  truth,  an 
increasing  reverence  for  fair  inquiry,  which  is  of  good 
augury  for  the  time  which  lies  before  us. 

Jesus  Christ  undoubtedly  intended  religious  belief 
to  rest  upon  a double  basis.  If  we  watch  the  method 
by  which,  in  the  Gospels,  conviction  is  represented  as 
being  generated  in  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  we  find 
that  it  includes  both  inward  faith,  and  outward  evi- 
dence. On  the  one  hand  our  Lord,  more  perhaps 
than  any  other  master,  caused  His  disciples  to  be 
educated  by  external  events,  ordering  circumstances, 
and  letting  them  teach;  and  He  chose  for  His 
Apostles  men  of  such  sort,  as  are  most  simply  recep- 
tive, and  least  possessed  by  d priori  ideas.  Chris- 
tianity in  a unique  sense  is  a religion  produced  by 
outward  facts,  and  promoted  by  the  witness  of  those 
who  saw.  On  the  other  hand,  Jesus  Christ  deliber- 
ately made  His  appeal  to  faith,  properly  so  called, 
and  educated  in  His  disciples  the  faculty  of  faith, 
and  challenged  and  welcomed  its  spontaneous  activ- 
ity, and  refused  to  demonstrate  mathematically  what 


THE  SUPEBNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  63 


He  wished  men  to  believe,  nay  rather  He  appears  as 
giving  men  loop-holes  for  escape,  and  not  pressing 
conviction  too  forcibly  upon  them.  He  did  not,  for 
example,  appear  after  His  resurrection  to  unbelievers 
but  to  believers ; which  means  that  this  crowning 
miracle  was  to  be  used  to  confirm  an  existing  faith, 
not  to  create  it  where  it  did  not  exist.  Again  He 
deliberately  refused  to  respond  by  demonstration  to 
the  complaining  request  of  the  Jews.  ‘‘How  long 
dost  thou  keep  our  souls  in  suspense  ? if  thou  art  the 
Christ,  tell  us  plainly”: — pointing  out  that  disposi- 
tion is  always  necessary  for  belief ; that  “ His  sheep 
hear  His  voice”;  that  He  spoke  and  acted  clearly 
enough  for  them.^  So  on  another  occasion  He  as- 
serted the  limits  of  external  evidence  in  moral  mat- 
ters: “If  they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
neither  will  they  be  persuaded  if  one  rise  from  the 
dead.”  ^ 

Jesus  Christ  then  taught  by  events.  He  made  His 
Apostles  not  so  much  prophets  as  witnesses  ; but  He 
also  postulated  a will  to  believe.  It  is  faith  based  on 
evidence  that  He  wishes  to  generate,  but  still  faith. 
We  then  will  approach  the  consideration  of  the  evi- 
dence for  our  religion  on  the  one  hand  with  the  dis- 
position of  faith,  that  is,  in  the  intellect  a perception 
of  the  need  and  reasonableness  of  redemption,  in  the 
heart  the  desire  for  the  word  of  God,  and  the  will  to 
surrender  ourselves  to  Him ; on  the  other  hand  with 
a simple  and  open-minded  determination  to  submit  our- 
selves to  the  results  of  real  inquiry  at  its  last  issue. 

1 St.  John  X.  22-28.  2 gt.  Luke  xvi.  31. 


64  THE  INOABNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


II. 

The  inquirer  into  the  historical  grounds  of  our 
Christian  faith,  will  be  wise  to  make  a beginning  with 
St.  Paul’s  epistles,  and  he  had  better  go  back  at  once 
to  that  specially  characteristic  group,  which  bears  the 
most  unmistakable  evidence  of  authenticity,  that  is  to 
say,  the  epistles  to  the  Galatians,  to  the  Romans,  and 
to  the  Corinthians.^  Now  what  is  the  conception  of 
Christ’s  person  which  he  finds  there  expressed  or 
implied?  He  finds  Jesus  Christ  co-ordinated  with 
God  in  the  necessarily  divine  functions  and  offices, 
both  in  nature  and  in  grace,  in  a manner  impossible 
to  the  mind  of  a Jewish  monotheist  like  St.  Paul, 
unless  the  co-ordinated  person  is  really  believed  to 
belong  to  the  properly  divine  being.  So  complete  is 
this  co-ordination  that  (to  quote  the  language  of  Pro- 
fessor Pfleiderer)  we  need  feel  no  surprise  when 
Paul  at  length  calls  Him  without  reserve  ‘ God  who 
is  over  all  blessed  for  evermore.’  ” And  St.  Paul  can 
thus  pay  divine  honour  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  present, 
only  because  of  what  He  was  antecedently  to  His 
appearance  in  our  fiesh.  Thus  there  is  no  disputing 
that  these  epistles  teach  — or,  more  truly,  assume  as 
believed  — the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  mediator  in  creation,  through  whom 
are  all  things,”  before  He  was  manifest  to  human 
eyes.  He  was  with  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness  sup- 
plying their  wants,  ‘‘for  they  drank  of  a spiritual 
1 See  app.  note  18. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  65 


rock  that  followed  them : and  the  rock  was  Christ.' 
Before  the  days  of  His  flesh  He  existed  as  the  Son 
of  God,”  God’s  own  Son,”  before  He  was  ‘‘sent 
forth  born  of  a woman.”  Thus  the  “ second  man  ” is 
“from  heaven,”  but  that  not  without  a change.  His 
Incarnation  was  a voluntary  act  of  self-beggary,  an 
act  by  which  the  divine  Son  for  our  sakes  “ became 
poor,”  depriving  Himself  of  the  riches  of  His  pre- 
vious state,  in  order  for  our  redemption  to  become 
true  man,  in  the  reality  of  our  nature  “ according  to 
the  flesh,”  and,  though  He  “ knew  no  sin  ” Himself, 
“ in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin.”  Thus  in  order 
of  time.  He  is  first  divine,  afterwards  human.  But  in 
the  order  of  His  self-disclosure  He  is  first  human, 
then  divine.  He  showed  His  Divinity  through  His 
Humanity.  He  appeared  as  man,  afterwards  through 
the  evidences  of  His  manhood  men  came  to  believe 
in  His  Godhead.  In  part  this  belief  was  due  to  His 
miracles  or  power,  in  part  to  the  spirit  of  holiness 
which  gave  His  miracles  a moral  character  and  im- 
pressiveness, at  the  last  resort  it  was  to  His  resurrec- 
tion. So  St.  Paul  summarizes  the  matter,  “ He  was 
born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh, 
and  marked  out  as  the  Son  of  God  in  power  (that  is, 
according  to  a recognized  use  of  St.  Paul’s,  by  miracu- 
lous working)  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead.” 

Of  detail  of  our  Lord’s  life  St.  Paul  gives  us  very 
little.  He  was  not,  we  remember,  like  the  other 
Apostles,  an  eye-witness  of  its  incidents.  But  he  does 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  lead  us  to  recognize  an 


66  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

important  fact,  viz.  that  his  first  preaching  to  his  con- 
verts contained  more  of  narrative  than  his  subsequent 
letters.  On  two  occasions  he  recalls  the  memory  of 
the  Corinthians  to  his  original  teaching  in  the  form 
of  a narrative  of  events,  “ I delivered  unto  you  first 
of  all  that  which  I also  received  ” ; “I  received  . . . 
that  which  also  I delivered  unto  you,”  — that  is,  the 
account  of  the  institution  of  the  holy  eucharist  at 
the  last  supper,  and  of  the  appearances  after  the 
resurrection.  In  the  former  case  the  narrative  is  in 
obvious  correspondence  with  that  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels ; in  the  latter  case,  it  is  a summary  narrative, 
which,  omitting  for  whatever  reason,  all  appearances 
to  women,  is  our  best  help  in  combining  the  state- 
ments and  implications  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke 
in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  taken  together. 

In  a word,  we  get  in  St.  Paul’s  undisputed  epistles, 
first  a clear  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  and  person  of 
Christ  not  developed  into  a theology,  but  unmistak- 
able in  character ; secondly,  an  account  of  the  method 
of  Christ’s  manifestation,  the  manifestation  of  the 
divinity  through  the  humanity,  which  corresponds 
with  the  evangelic  record ; thirdly,  an  appeal  back 
behind  his  present  teaching  to  primary  instruction  in 
the  events  of  Christ’s  passion  and  resurrection,  which 
presupposes  an  evangelic  narrative  already  existing 
in  the  memory  of  the  church. 

These  epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  written  in  the  year 

67  or  68,  but  the  teaching  they  contain  is  no  new 
thing  at  that  moment,  it  goes  back  in  its  main  feat- 
ures to  the  time  of  his  conversion  twenty  years  before, 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  67 


not  more  than  ten  years  after  the  death  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus.  At  that  time  he  “ learnt  Christ,”  and 
began  his  career  as  an  Apostle,  and  after  that  time  he 
preached  no  other  Gospel  than  that  which  his  converts 
first  received.!  Moreover,  whereas  these  epistles  are 
epistles  of  controversy  with  the  Judaistic  party,  we 
are  enabled  to  perceive  that  among  the  points  of  dis- 
pute between  St.  Paul  and  the  false  conservatives,  the 
doctrine  of  Christ’s  person  was  not  one.  St.  Paul 
does,  indeed,  imply  that  unless  the  Judaizers  are  pre- 
pared to  advance  in  practice  to  a fuller  recognition 
of  the  newness  and  largeness  of  Christ’s  work,  they 
will  evacuate  the  Gospel  of  meaning  and  play  false 
to  Him  — and  in  fact  the  Pharisaic  Ebionites  of 
church  history  are  a fulfilment  of  St.  Paul’s  pro- 
phetic warning ; — but  he  never  allows  us  to  suppose 
that  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s  person  or  the  reality  of 
the  resurrection  were  at  all  in  controversy  either 
among  the  Apostles  or  in  a body  of  the  church,  at 
a date  when  the  greater  part  of  those  who  had  seen 
the  risen  Christ  were  still  alive. 

We  can  be  sure  then  that,  if  we  could  be  carried 
back  across  the  centuries  and  planted  of  a sudden  in 
these  earliest  Christian  churches,  our  traditional  faith 
would  not  receive  a shock,  at  least  in  fundamentals  ; 
we  should  find  them  believing  in  the  Incarnation, 
instructed  as  to  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  Christ 
manifested  Himself  in  miraculous  working,  and  rec- 
ognizing that  the  most  significant  of  the  miracles 
accompanying  His  manifestation  was  the  resurrection 
1 Gal.  i.  8, 9. 


68  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

on  the  third  day  from  the  dead.  Certainly,  then, 
neither  the  belief  in  the  divinity  and  incarnation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  nor  the  belief  in  His  miraculous  man- 
ifestation, can,  consistently  with  St.  Paul’s  epistles, 
be  regarded  as  an  accretion  upon  the  original  belief 
of  the  Apostles  and  their  first  disciples. 


III. 

The  question  next  arises,  have  we  in  our  present 
Gospels  something  which  represents  faithfully  the 
original  narrative  of  the  apostolic  witnesses?  In 
answer  to  this  question  an  inquirer  who  aims  rather 
at  satisfying  his  faith  than  at  solving  the  complicated 
literary  problems  of  the  first  three,  the  Synoptic,  Gos- 
pels, will  do  well  to  give  his  attention  first  of  all  to 
the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark.  Can  we  with 
reasonable  certainty  assign  a date  to  this  Gospel? 
A recent  critic,  Mr.  Estlin  Carpenter,  who  writes  in 
a sense  strongly  adverse  to  Christian  theology,  dates 
St.  Mark’s  Gospel  about  a.d.  70 J We  may  depend 
upon  it  that  that  is  at  least  not  too  early  a date,  and 
it  commends  itself  more  or  less  exactly  to  a great 
many  independent  critics.  What  is  of  more  impor- 
tance is  to  notice  that  this  Gospel,  or  what  was  in 
substance  this  Gospel,  has  formed  the  basis  both  of 
St.  Matthew’s  and  St.  Luke’s  narrative.  Here,  then, 
in  the  matter  common  to  St.  Mark  with  both  the 
other  evangelists  — or  we  may  say,  though  for  oui 


1 Synoptic  Gospels  (Unit.  S.  School  Assoc.,  1890),  p.  381. 


THE  SUPERNATUBAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  6g 


present  purpose  it  makes  little  difference,  with  either 
of  the  other  evangelists  — we  get  as  near  as  we  can 
to  the  roots  of  the  evangelical  tradition.  Let  us  con- 
sider this  (as  it  is  called)  first  cycle  ” of  teaching 
about  Jesus  Christ,  and  learn  its  main  lessons : — 

(1)  First,  I would  rank  the  impression  made  upon 
the  mind  of  reality  and  historical  truthfulness.  Let  a 
man  read  St.  Mark  afresh,  in  some  accurate  text  which 
divides  the  narrative  into  sections,  rather  than  into 
the  customary  chapters  and  verses,  let  him  read  the 
Gospel  as  a connected  whole,  and  he  will  receive  a 
fresh  and  vivid  impression  that  the  picture  brought 
under  his  eyes  represents  no  effort  of  imagination  or 
invention,  but  is  the  transcript  of  reality  on  faithful 
and  simple  memories.  There  is  nothing  in  the  liter- 
ary situation  out  of  which  this  Gospel,  or  the  Gospels 
generally,  sprang,  which  justifies  us  in  believing  that 
it  could  produce  a supreme  effort,  or  rather  several 
supreme  efforts,  of  the  creative  imagination.  Con- 
sidering the  supernatural  character  of  the  central 
figure  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  unity  which  underlies 
their  varieties,  it  is  not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that 
the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  if  He  be  not  true  to  history, 
represents  a combined  effort  of  the  creative  imagina- 
tion without  parallel  in  literary  history.  But  the 
literary  characteristics  of  Palestine  in  the  first  cen- 
tury make  the  hypothesis  of  such  an  effort  morally 
impossible.  Moreover,  the  existing  legends  about 
our  Lord’s  childhood  in  the  apocryphal  Gospels  show 
us  what  the  imagination  of  early  Christians  or  half- 
Christians  could  in  fact  produce  — something  which 


70  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

is  as  different  from  the  canonical  Gospels  as  the  real 
light  of  the  sun  is  from  the  imitation  of  it  on  the 
stage. 

(2)  Secondly,  as  we  look  more  closely  at  the  mat- 
ter of  St.  Mark’s  Gospel,  we  shall  see  great  reason  to 
believe  the  tradition  which  Papias  first  records,  who 
himself  lived  under  the  shadow  of  the  apostolic  age. 

This  (he  writes)  the  elder  used  to  say : ‘ Mark,  hav- 
ing become  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down 
accurately  everything  that  he  remembered,  without 
however  recording  in  order  what  was  either  said  or 
done  by  Christ.  For  neither  did  he  hear  the  Lord, 
nor  did  he  follow  Him;  but  afterwards,  as  I said, 
[attended]  Peter,  who  adapted  his  instruction  to  the 
needs  [of  his  hearers]  and  had  no  design  of  giving  a 
connected  account  of  the  Lord’s  oracles.  So  then 
Mark  made  no  mistake  while  he  thus  wrote  down 
some  things  as  he  remembered  them;  for  he  made  it 
his  one  care  not  to  omit  anything  that  he  heard,  or  to 
set  down  any  false  statement  therein.’”  Internal 
evidence  makes  it  very  difficult  to  doubt  that  this 
teaching  of  Peter  ” is  the  bulk  of  our  second  Gos- 
pel. It  would  have  constituted  the  material  of  the 
catechetical  instruction  which,  as  St.  Luke’s  preface 
assures  us,  formed  the  basis  of  the  written  Gospels. 
Here  is  a narrative  simple  and  brief  enough  to  have 
easily  been  the  subject  of  oral  instruction  in  the  dif- 
ferent churches  of  St.  Peter’s  foundation.  St.  Peter 
was  never  a theologian,  like  St.  Paul  or  St.  John, 
and  his  Gospel  was  probably  a narrative  of  incidents 
which  impressed  themselves  most  vividly  on  his 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  71 


memory,  and  which  he  judged  especially  suitable  for 
primary  instruction,  with  but  small  accompaniment 
of  discourse. 

We  scan  then  this  first  cycle  of  evangelic  teaching, 
and  what  do  we  find  in  it?  A record  which  im- 
presses us  with  its  fidelity,  but  which  is  pre-eminently 
miraculous.  Miracle  is  here  at  its  height,  its  propor- 
tion to  the  whole  narrative  is  greater  than  in  any 
other  Gospel,  because  of  the  comparative  absence  of 
discourses,  and  the  miracles  are  exhibitions  of  su- 
preme power  such  as  do  not  admit  of  any  naturalistic 
interpretation.  There  is  the  feeding  of  the  five  thou- 
sand, and  the  raising  of  Jairus’  daughter,  and  the 
healing  of  the  paralytic,  and  of  the  man  with  the 
withered  hand,  and  of  the  leper,  and  the  stilling  of 
the  tempest,  and  the  walking  upon  the  water.  More- 
over, the  impression  which  Christ’s  person  makes  on 
us,  in  spite  of  the  comparative  absence  of  discourses, 
is  exactly  the  same  as  that  which  we  receive  from 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  The  absolute  authorita- 
tiveness of  the  Christ  is  the  impressive  fact,  He 
taught  as  one  having  authority.”  With  authority 
He  announces  beforehand  His  passion  and  resurrec- 
tion after  three  days,  and  the  world-wide  spread  of 
His  Gospel,  and  the  glory  of  the  saints  with  Him- 
self when  He  shall  come  at  the  last  day  to  exercise 
divine  judgment.  With  authority  He  controls  the 
devils.  With  authority  He  governs  physical  nature. 
He  heals  men’s  bodies  even  in  His  absence,  and 
absolves  their  sins,  and  commands  their  allegiance. 
And  this  because  of  what  He  was ; because  though 


72  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Son  of  man,  He  was  not  mere  man,  there  was  some- 
thing behind  what  appeared,  which  He  would  not 
freely  disclose,  which  He  left  men  mostly  to  find  out, 
but  which  the  devils  recognized;  “ Jesus,  the  Son  of 
the  most  high  God.”  This  He  was  declared  to  be  at 
His  baptism  and  His  transfiguration  by  the  voice  of 
the  Father.  So  He  described  Himself  in  the  parable 
where  He  distinguishes  Himself  as  the  only  Son  from 
the  servants  who  were  God’s  previous  messengers. 
Because  He  is  this.  He  would  have  the  Jews  think  of 
the  Messiah  as  David’s  Lord  rather  than  as  David’s 
son.  It  is  when  He  confesses  Himself  the  Son  of 
the  Blessed,”  in  response  to  the  demand  of  the  High 
Priest,  that  He  announces  also  that  He  shall  be  man- 
ifested at  the  last,  ‘‘  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power 
and  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven.”  As  Son 
once  more  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  superior  to 
the  angels,  even  when  He  is  declaring  Himself  igno- 
rant of  the  day  and  hour  of  the  end.  In  a word, 
the  brief  statement  of  St.  Paul,  already  referred 
to,  is  a sufficiently  accurate  analysis  of  this  Gos- 
pel. It  is  the  Gospel  of  ‘‘one  born  of  the  seed 
of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  and  marked  out  as 
the  Son  of  God  in  miraculous  power  according  to 
the  spirit  of  holiness  by  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.” 

Once  again,  then,  a sifting  of  the  evidence  discloses 
in  the  earliest  Gospel  the  Christ  of  the  Apostles’ 
Creed.  It  affords  us  no  justification  for  supposing  a 
process  of  accretion  by  which  a naturalistic  Christ 
was  gradually  deified,  or  became  the  subject  of  mir- 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  73 


acles.  The  Christ  of  the  original  apostolic  testimony 
appears  unyieldingly  the  miraculous  Son  of  God  as 
the  most  human  Son  of  man.^ 

IV. 

At  this  stage  of  our  inquiry  we  shall  do  well  to 
exercise  a strict  self-denial.  Tempting  problems  lie 
before  us  in  the  relations  of  the  Gospels  to  one 
another,  but  we  will  deliberately  refrain  from  touch- 
ing these  problems  at  all.  Again,  we  hear  it  sug- 
gested that  there  are  indications  in  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  of  deteriorations  in  the  common  tradition ; 
again  that  there  are  discrepancies  between  the  three 
Evangelists.  For  the  moment  we  will  let  the  case 
go  by  default  in  favour  of  these  suggestions,  but  at 
least,  as  we  read  each  of  the  three  Gospels  in  turn, 
we  shall  find  the  Christ  presented  to  us  the  same  fig- 
ure, only  with  such  characteristic  features  as  would 
be  derived  in  part  from  independent  testimony,  in 
part  from  fresh  treatment  of  the  same  material.  Dis- 
crepancies, if  they  are  made  the  most  of,  do  not 
approach  the  point  at  which,  according  to  the  rules  of 
ordinary  historical  inquiry,  they  would  be  supposed 
to  invalidate  the  record  as  a whole. 

But  even  at  the  first  stage  of  our  inquiry  we  must 
pause  over  St.  Luke’s  preface.  We  shall  feel  that 
these  few  verses  ^ give  us  an  account,  as  true  as  it  is 
simple,  of  the  origin  of  the  written  Gospels. 

They  tell  us  how  the  evangelical  narrative  was 

1 See  app.  note  19. 


2 St.  Luke  i.  1-4. 


74  THE  INCAEKATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

at  first  delivered  by  eye-witnesses  and  authorized 
expositors  of  what  they  related,  “ eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  word  ” ; how  it  became  familiar  to 
Christians  orally  in  the  catechetical  system  of  the 
churches;  how  after  a time  many  began  to  write 
down  the  familiar  record,  according  to  their  ability ; 
how  St.  Luke  had  special  opportunities  of  accurate 
information  extending  over  the  whole  period  of  our 
Lord’s  life  from  the  beginning,  and  therefore  thought 
it  right  to  be  at  pains  to  construct  an  orderly  narra- 
tive, which  he  offers  to  Theophilus  as  something 
which  may  be  depended  upon  for  a trustworthy 
account  of  the  subject-matter  of  his  faith.  What  a 
fund  of  re-assurance  lies  in  those  simple  verses  with 
which  St.  Luke  opens  his  Gospel ! How  vividly 
they  enable  us  to  realize  that,  behind  the  written 
Gospels,  reducing  them,  at  the  moment  of  their  com- 
position, even  to  comparative  insignificance,  lay  the 
authoritative  apostolic  message,  enshrined  in  the  memo- 
ries of  churches. 

V. 


I must  here  be  allowed  to  assume  the  results  of  my 
predecessor’s  labours  in  this  lectureship,^  and  state 
simply,  though  with  sincere  conviction,  based  on  the 
best  inquiry  I can  give,  that  it  is  those  who  deny,  and 
not  those  who  affirm,  St.  John’s  authorship  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  who  do  violence  to  the  evidence.  The 
evidence,  external  and  internal,  combines  to  press  it 
home  upon  “ the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.”  Here, 
1 See  app.  note  20. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  75 


then,  we  have,  to  piece  in  with  the  testimony  of  St.^ 
Paul  and  the  Synoptists,  the  witness  of  the  old 
Apostle. 

Fifty  years  of  brooding  meditation,  and  many 
years  of  constant  teaching,  since  Jesus  left  this  world, 
have  crystallized  the  record  of  his  memory  into  clear- 
cut  and  distinct  images  of  the  person,  the  words,  the 
deeds  of  his  friend,  his  master,  his  God.  He  has 
passed  into  a wholly  new  world  at  Ephesus,  half- 
Greek,  half-Asiatic,  where  Gnostic  questions  are 
beginning  to  be  agitated,  and  men  are  seeking  to 
locate  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  in  some  universal 
cosmogony  or  system  of  aeons.  The  central  problem 
is  ‘‘Who  Jesus  was?”  “He  was,”  answered  the  old 
Apostle,  “the  Word  made  flesh.”  The  phraseology 
of  the  famous  prologue  is  obviously  familiar  phrase- 
ology, which  requires  no  explanation  in  St.  John’s 
new  home ; and  it  is  apparently  deliberately  applied 
to  suggest  answers  to  the  new  questionings.  But  the 
characteristic  force  of  its  central  term,  “the  Word”^ 
or  “ Logos,”  appears  to  be  derived  from  Hebrew,  not 
Greek,  sources  and  from  the  atmosphere  of  Palestine 
rather  than  of  Alexandria. 

In  the  philosophical  language  of  Alexandria,  as  it 
appears  in  the  writings  of  the  J ewish  Philo,  the  term 
“ Logos  ” is  used  to  express  the  divine  reason  or 
thought,  which  is  the  archetypal  idea  or  moulding 
principle  of  the  material  world.  “ Logos  ” in  Philo 
must  be  translated  “ reason.”  But  in  the  Targums, 
or  early  Jewish  paraphrases  on  the  Old  Testament, 
the  “word”  of  Jehovah  (“Memra,”  “Debura”)  is 


76  THE  mCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


constantly  spoken  of  as  the  efficient  instrument  of 
divine  action,  in  cases  where  the  Old  Testament 
speaks  of  Jehovah  Himself.  “ The  word  of  God  ” 
had  come  to  be  used  personally,  as  almost  equivalent 
to  God  manifesting  Himself,  or  God  in  action.  Now 
in  the  Apocalypse,^  it  is  plain  that  the  person  whose 
B»me  i4  the  “ Logos  ” of  God  expresses  not  the  divine 
resttion,  but  the  divine  word  or  power : and  the  same 
is  true  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  Here  also  “ Logos  ” 
must  be  translated  not  “ reason  ” but  “ word  ” : and 
this  means  that  the  phraseology  of  St.  John  has  its 
roots  not  in  Platonic  or  Stoic  idealism,  but  in  the 
Jewish  belief  in  the  word  of  God,  the  manifestation 
of  His  will  in  creation  or  in  revelation 

In  effect  St.  John’s  theology  of  the  Incarnation  is 
the  same  as  St.  Paul’s ; but  in  St.  John  it  has  a pecul- 
iar interest,  because  in  a unique  sense  it  is  the  out- 
• come  of  his  own  experience.  He  could  never  forget 
how  he  had  passed  from  John  the  Baptist  to  Jesus, 
•.and  had  even  at  the  first,  according  to  the  Baptist’s 
own  witness,  perceived  the  vital  difference  between 
the  old  master  and  the  new.  This  perception  of  dif- 
ference had  deepened  into  a conviction  in  which  faith 
was  indistinguishable  from  experience,  in  which  it 
became  certain  knowledge.  “ The  Word,  who  in  the 
beginning  was  in  fellowship  with  God,  who  was  God, 
by  whom  all  things  were  made,  whose  life  was  the 
light  of  men,  who  was  all  along  coming  into  the 
world,”  now  at  the  last  “ had  been  made  flesh  and  had 
tabernacled  among  them,  and  they  had  beheld  His 

1 Rev.  xix.  13.  2 gee  app.  note  21. 


THE  SUPEKNATUKAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  77 


glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father.” 
This  is  St.  John’s  summary  and  emphatic  witness, 
and  he  passes  on  to  give  those  vivid  memories  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  on  which  that  witness  is  based.  For 
whatever  intention  St.  John  may  have  had  of  supple- 
menting existing  records,  the  impulse  which  mainly  de- 
termined his  selection  of  incidents  seems  to  have  been 
his  own  special  memory  and  the  fruit  of  his  long  medi- 
tation. Thus  he  depicts  for  us  scenes  in  that  early,  es- 
pecially Judaean,  ministry  of  our  Lord,  which,  though 
not  recorded  by  the  Synoptists,  is  yet — as  critics  of  all 
schools  are  increasingly  inclined  to  recognize,  — pos- 
tulated by  the  relations  in  which  our  Lord  is  seen  to 
stand  to  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  in  the  closing  days  of 
His  life.  Again  he  gives  us  memorable  pictures  of 
our  Lord’s  dealing  with  single  souls,  with  Nicodemus, 
with  the  woman  at  the  well,  with  the  man  who  was 
born  blind,  with  individual  disciples  before  and  after 
the  resurrection.  Again  he  unfolds  before  our  eyes 
our  Lord’s  relations  to  men,  as  a great  drama  of  be- 
lief and  unbelief.  Once  more  he  fills  in  the  Synoptic 
history  of  the  trial  and  passion  of  Jesus  with  scenes 
and  touches  of  living  power,  producing  a whole  of 
wonderful  harmony,  even  though  his  narrative  intro- 
duce one,  perhaps  insoluble,  difficulty,  as  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Last  Supper  to  the  paschal  meal.  But 
the  pre-eminent  interest  of  St.  John’s  Gospel  lies  in 
his  representation  of  our  Lord’s  discourses,  and  in 
the  witness  which  these  bear  to  His  eternal  pre-exist- 
ence. Our  Lord’s  general  method  was  to  let  men 
sjome  to  believe  His  Godhead  gradually  through  their 


78  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

experience  of  His  manhood.  In  his  discourses  in  St. 
John  there  is  a distinct  note  audible.  He  is  heard  to 
assert  plainly  His  own  pre-existence  and  His  own 
essential  relation  to  the  Father.  Now  did  this  asser- 
tion of  His  own  eternal  being  historically  form  part 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus? 

We  shall  not  lay  stress  on  the  exact  form  of  the 
discourses  as  they  appear  in  St.  John.  The  literary 
habit  of  the  age  (as  Cardinal  Newman  well  pointed 
out^)  allowed  great  freedom  in  the  use  of  oratio 
directa.”  We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  that 
freedom  was  used  in  those  summaries  and  combina- 
tions of  our  Lord’s  discourses,  which  are  given  in  St. 
Matthew.  Accordingly  we  shall  not  hesitate  to  rec- 
ognize that  the  discourses  in  the  fourth  Gospel  as 
well,  have  taken  their  verbal  tone  and  form  in  St. 
John’s  own  mind.  But  if  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
was  St.  John ; if  he  was  the  special  friend  of  Jesus ; 
if  he  was  the  most  spiritually  apprehensive  of  all  the 
disciples ; if  (as  he  tells  us)  he  believed  that  he,  with 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  had  been  endowed  with  a 
special  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  bring  all  things 
to  his  remembrance  that  Jesus  said  to  them”; — we 
cannot  but  admit  that  these  discourses  do  in  sub- 
stance come  from  Jesus  Christ;  Jesus  did  Himself 
bear  witness  to  His  own  eternal  relation  to  the 
Father.  In  support  of  this  conclusion  we  shall  re- 
member : — 

(1)  that  it  would  be  otherwise  very  difficult  to 
explain  the  thoroughly  accepted  position  of  this  doc- 
1 See  app.  note  22. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  7& 


trine  in  the  earliest  churches  as  St.  Paul  bears  wit- 
ness to  it ; 

(2)  that  there  are  utterances  in  the  Synoptists 
parallel  to  those  in  St.  John.  All  things  have 
been  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father,  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son  save  the  Father,  neither  doth  any 
know  the  Father  save  the  Son.”  Or  again,  “ Of  that 
day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the 
angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father.” 
Or  again,  Go  ye  . . . and  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,”  a formula 
which  certainly  implies  the  Son’s  eternal  existence 
with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit.  If  Jesus  Christ  was 
in  this  transcendental  sense  “ Son  of  the  Father,”  He 
could  only  be  a visitant  from  the  higher,  the  eternal 
world. 

(3)  We  shall  remember  that  the  absolute  moral 
authority  of  the  Son  of  man  and  His  coming  as 
divine  judge  of  the  whole  world  in  glory  at  the  last 
— this  authority  which  appears  so  emphatically  in 
the  discourses  of  the  Synoptists  — is  not  really  disso- 
ciable from  divine,  that  is,  eternal  being.  We  need 
only  to  suppose  that  St.  John’s  theological  mind 
seized  and  retained,  more  than  that  of  the  other  Apos- 
tles, the  particular  class  of  sayings  which  character- 
izes his  Gospel : that  while  the  words  and  works  of 
authority  and  the  claims  of  judgment  made  most 
impression  upon  the  minds  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Mat- 
thew, the  more  mysterious  utterances  were  (in  the 
ways  of  Providence,  which  works  under  the  guise  of 
accident)  retained  and  recorded  by  St.  John. 


80  THE  INCARKATIOK  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


We  have  traced  up  the  evidence  of  our  faith  along 
three  chief  lines : we  have  examined  the  testimony 
of  St.  John,  we  have  scrutinized  the  earliest  evangel- 
ical narratives,  which  certainly  reproduce  for  us  the 
apostolic  teaching,  and  we  have  investigated  the 
belief  of  the  earliest  churches  under  the  guidance  of 
St.  Paul.  The  result  of  our  inquiry  is  that  we  are 
able  to  repudiate  as  un-historical  the  notion  of  a natu- 
ralistic Christ  hidden  behind  the  miraculous  Christ, 
the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  of  the  church’s  belief. 
Historical  evidence,  let  me  repeat,  cannot  create 
faith,  but  it  can,  and  does,  satisfy  it  where  it  exists, 
and  rationally  justify  the  venture  that  it  makes.  In 
a word,  it  is  those  who  deny  and  not  those  who 
affirm  the  traditional  belief,  who  do  violence  to  the 
evidence. 


VI. 

The  force  of  such  positive  historical  evidence  as  I 
have  been  trying  to  present,  is  sometimes  met  in  our 
day  by  depreciating  not,  as  of  old,  the  moral  honesty, 
but  the  intellectual  or  critical  capacity,  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  first  disciples.  ‘‘If  first-hand  evidence  is 
always  good  evidence,”  it  is  said  “ we  have  very  good 
evidence  for  multitudes  of  mediseval  miracles.  If 
we  are  not  prepared  to  interpolate  accepted  history 
with  miracles  passim^  we  cannot  place  exceptional 
reliance  on  the  testimony  of  the  disciples  of  one  par- 
ticular man.” 

Now  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  there  are  certain 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  81 


ages  when  belief  is  so  utterly  uncritical  that  it  does 
seem  as  if  they  could  not  under  any  circumstances 
afford  us  satisfactory  evidence  of  miraculous  occur- 
rences 5 and  in  every  age,  including  our  own,  there 
are  a great  number  of  people  whose  superstition,  or 
prejudice,  or  careless  untruthfulness,  is  so  great  that 
we  could  never  rely  on  their  evidence  for  any  excep- 
tional event,  where  their  interests  were  enlisted  or 
their  passions  excited.  But  I feel  sure  that  if  ever 
such  a book  as  the  History  of  testimony  ” is  worthily 
and  fairly  written,  the  Apostles  will  take  very  high 
rank  among  the  world’s  witnesses.  As  represented 
in  the  Gospels  they  were  men  not  of  the  poorest,  but 
of  the  more  independent  trading  class  ; simple,  literal- 
minded men ; not  superstitious  and  still  less  roman- 
tic ; free  from  all  traces  of  morbidness ; slow  of  belief 
through  lack  of  imagination  ; as  individuals  strikingly 
different  in  character,  so  as  not  easily  to  be  led  the 
same  way;  with  the  exception  of  St.  John  not  well 
adapted  to  be  theologians  and  none  of  them  (like  St. 
Paul)  controversial  theologians ; but  singularly  well 
qualified  as  witnesses.  They  were  qualified  as  wit- 
nesses because,  free  from  all  preoccupation  with  ideas 
and  systems,  they  were  plain  men  who  could  receive 
the  impress  of  facts ; who  can  tell  a simple  plain  tale 
and  show  by  their  lives  how  much  they  believed  it. 
And  they  were  trained  to  be  witnesses.  Jesus  Christ 
intended  His  Gospel  to  rest  on  facts ; and  in  corre- 
spondence with  this  intention,  the  whole  stress  in  the 
apostolic  church  was  laid  on  witness.  The  first 
thing  the  church  had  to  do,  before  it  developed  its 


82  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

theology,  was  to  tell  its  tale  of  fact.  ‘‘We  are  wit- 
nesses of  these  things.”  ^ 

And  in  what  atmosphere,  we  ask,  did  the  Apostles 
hear  their  testimony?  It  was  in  face  of  the  Sad- 
ducees  who  were  their  chief  opponents  and  who  sat 
in  the  seat  of  authority.  And  the  Sadducees  were 
sceptics,  with  the  scepticism  of  worldly  men  who 
have  a political  cause  to  maintain,  and  would  fain 
keep  the  supernatural  at  arm’s  length ; men  who 
were  regarded  as  denying  resurrection  and  angels 
and  spirits. 

And  of  what  sort  was  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles  ? 
Consider  its  originality.  When  once  a type  of  appro- 
priate miracles  has  been  set,  it  is  very  easy,  so  to 
speak,  to  go  on  taking  off  impressions  as  in  mediaeval 
hagiology.  Again,  miracles  of  mere  healing  or  por- 
tents of  power  any  one  can  invent.  But  for  the  sort 
of  miracles  which  Jesus  is  mostly  described  as  work- 
ing, so  spiritual  and  original,  so  characteristic,  there 
was  no  type.  For  a resurrection  body  there  was  no 
pattern.  If  Jews  full  of  Messianic  hopes,  as  is  sup- 
posed, had  pictured  a Christ  coming  again  from  death, 
it  would  have  been,  like  the  “ Son  of  man  ” of  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  a Christ  in  glory,  or  “ one  like  unto 
a Son  of  man  ” of  the  Apocalypse.  What  was  there 
in  the  imagination  of  this  group  of  Jews  which  could 
project  into  the  outward  world  the  strong  vivid  image 
of  the  risen  body  of  Jesus,  spiritual,  superior  to  the 
limitations  of  the  grosser  material  life,  yet  so  real; 
the  pierced  body  of  the  same  Christ,  yet  so  changed. 

1 See  app.  note  23. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  83 


For  observe:  visions  which  are  subjective  can  be 
explained  out  of  the  images  and  presuppositions 
which  already  exist  in  the  visionary’s  mind.  For 
St.  Theresa’s  visions,  or  Joan  of  Arc’s  vision,  the 
pattern  existed  within.  It  needed  but  an  imagina- 
tion to  project  it.  Disbelieve  their  visions  — their 
lives  are  still  intelligible  wholes,  with  adequate  causes 
to  interpret,  and  to  account  for  them.  But  the  Apos- 
tles were  men  whose  later  lives  can  only  be  accounted 
for  by  a certain  fact,  the  fact  of  the  resurrection. 
This  fact  transferred  them  from  one  level  of  charac- 
ter to  another;  it  transferred  men  first  confounded 
and  desperate  after  their  Lord’s  death,  then  slow  of 
heart  to  believe  what  seemed  too  good  to  be  true,  into 
men  confident,  quiet,  strong,  invincible  in  the  might 
of  a fact  experienced  on  certain  definite  occasions,  and 
not  again.  Depend  upon  it,  merely  subjective  visions 
do  not  transform  human  lives.  If  mediaeval  visions 
of  Jesus  exercised  power,  they  were  only  recurrences 
of  a known  image,  fresh  impressions  of  a known  truth. 
The  Apostles’  lives  were  rapidly  driven  round  a sharp 
turning  with  a force  which  only  objective  facts  can 
exercise.  The  resurrection  moulded  them,  they  did 
not  create  the  resurrection.  The  more  closely  you 
consider  the  originality  of  such  an  event  as  the  res- 
urrection, of  such  a figure  as  the  risen  Jesus,  the  less 
ready  you  will  be  to  attribute  it  to  imagination.  The 
more  you  consider  the  intellectual  and  moral  charac- 
ter of  the  Apostles  — not  imaginative  men,  even  in 
the  sense  in  which  St.  Paul  was  — the  more  you  will 
trust  them  as  witnesses. 


84  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

This  consideration  also  you  will  not  neglect  — their 
fairness  to  their  opponents.  The  mediaeval  disciples 
of  a persecuted  master  would  indulge  in  diatribes, 
would  grossly  caricature  their  opponents,  like  parti- 
sans in  even  later  ecclesiastical  conflicts.  But  while 
the  evangelists  record  our  Lord’s  denunciations  of 
certain  classes,  how  wonderfully  they  (or  the  Apostles 
whose  teaching  they  reproduce)  abstain  from  impre- 
cations of  their  own.  How  free  from  abuse  are  the 
Gospels ; how  simply  drawn,  how  justly,  are  the  char- 
acters of  even  a Pilate,  a Caiaphas,  a Herod,  a Judas. 
They  are  not  abused,  they  are  photographed.  The  sin 
of  a Judas  and  of  a Peter  is  told  with  the  like  sim- 
plicity. Such  fairness,  wherever  you  find  it,  belongs 
to  a trustworthy  witness. 

VH. 

(2)  There  is  one  event  commemorated  in  our 
creed  which  does  not  rest  primarily  on  apostolic 
testimony.  It  is  the  virgin-birth  of  Jesus.  And  a 
few  men  — very  few  perhaps,  but  still  a few  — who 
believe  in  His  resurrection,  deny  or  doubt  the  miracle 
that  accompanied  His  birth.  Now  there  is  no  doubt 
that  this  event  was  not  part  of  the  primary  apostolic 
preaching,  as  it  is  given  us  in  St.  Mark’s  Gospel, 
simply  because  that  preaching  was  limited  by  what 
the  Apostles  had  actually  witnessed  during  the  time 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  went  out  among 
them,  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  J ohn  unto  the 
day  that  he  was  received  up  from  them.”  The  first 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  85 

preaching  was  simple  personal  testimony.  There  is 
also  no  doubt  that  the  Apostles  themselves  were  to 
be  taught  by  their  own  experience  of  Jesus,  and  had 
no  knowledge  given  them  to  start  with  of  His  mirac- 
ulous origin.  But  when  once  they  had  believed, 
they  must  have  been  interested  to  know  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Incarnation.  There  were  two  sources 
of  original  evidence,  Joseph  and  Mary.  Have  we 
reason  to  believe  that  we  have  their  testimony  in  the 
opening  chapters  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  ? 
Having  asked  this  question,  read  St.  Matthew’s  ac- 
count of  the  birth,  and  you  will  see  how  unmistak- 
ably everything  is  told  from  the  side  of  Joseph, 
his  perplexities,  the  intimations  which  he  received, 
his  resolutions  and  his  actions.  The  narrative 
has  been  worked  up  by  the  Evangelist  in  his  dom- 
inant interest  in  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  but  it 
has  all  the  marks  of  being  Joseph’s  story  at  the 
bottom,  though  we  cannot  tell  by  what  steps  it 
comes  to  us. 

On  the  other  hand,  St.  Luke’s  narrative,  an  in- 
tensely Jewish  document  following  on  his  markedly 
Greek  preface,  has  all  the  appearance  of  containing 
directly  or  indirectly  Mary’s  story.  It  is  so  intensely 
coloured  by  Jewish  national  hopes  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  think  of  it  as  embodying  feelings  subse- 
quent to  the  rejection  of  the  Christ.  It  appears  to 
be  in  special  view  of  this  opening  narrative  that  St. 
Luke  in  his  preface  emphasizes  the  fact  that  hk 
accurate  information  reaches  back  to  the  beginning. 
Once  again,  whatever  the  independence  of  the  two 


86  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

narratives  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  at  least  they 
agree  on  that  which  alone  concerns  us  at  present,  the 
virgin-birth  at  Bethlehem.  Further,  that  event  holds 
a firm  place  in  the  earliest  traditions  of  east  and 
west.  ‘‘  The  virginity  of  Mary,  her  child-bearing, 
and  the  death  of  the  Lord,”  constitute  to  Ignatius  at 
the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ‘‘  three  mysteries 
of  shouting  (that  is,  of  loud  proclamation)  which 
God  wrought  in  silence.”^  If  we  turn  from  the 
question  of  evidence  to  d priori  considerations,  we 
find  that  the  virgin-birth,  so  far  from  being  an  incon- 
gruous portent,  has  appeared  to  Christians  at  large  as 
hardly  dissociable  in  thought  from  the  occurrence  of 
the  Incarnation.  I would  affirm,  then,  that  though 
it  is  a perversion  of  evidential  order  to  begin  with  the 
miracle  of  the  virgin-birth,  yet  when  we  approach 
it  on  the  basis  of  the  apostolic  testimony  already 
accepted,fwith  confidence  in  the  evangelical  narrative 
already  secured,  we  find  good  reason  for  believing, 
and  no  good  reason  for  doubting,  this  element  of  the 
Christian  creed,  constantly  emphasized  from  the  be- 
ginning.2  . 

We  Christians  then  may  say  our  creed  in  the  con- 
fidence that  we  can  face  the  facts.  The  primary 
motive  to  belief  is  the  appeal  which  Jesus  makes  to 
our  heart,  and  conscience,  and  mind.  The  power  to 
believe,  or  to  maintain  belief,  is  the  gift  of  God  which 
we  must  earnestly  solicit  in  prayer ; it  is  the  move- 
ment of  the  Spirit.  ‘‘No  man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord, 
but  in  the  Holy  Ghost.”  But  belief,  Christian  belief, 

1 Ign.  ad  Eph,  19.  2 gee  app.  note  24. 


THE  SUPERNATURAL  CHRIST  HISTORICAL.  87 

is  justified  and  supported  by  the  evidence.  We  will 
be  a little  afraid  of  d priori  conceptions  and  abstract 
anticipations,  but  we  will  not  be  afraid  of  evidence, 
of  facts,  for  the  witness  standeth  sure. 


LECTURE  IV. 


THE  CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OE  SCRIPTURE. 

Have  this  mind  in  you^  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus : who,  being 
in  the  form  of  God,  counted  it  not  a prize  to  be  on  an  equality 
with  God,  but  emptied  himself,  talcing  the  form  of  a servant,  be- 
ing made  in  the  likeness  of  man.  — Philippians  ii.  5. 

In  the  lectures  which  have  preceded  we  have  been 
occupied  with  justifying  at  the  bar  of  nature  and  of 
history  the  faith  of  the  Christian  in  the  incarnate  Son 
of  God.  We  are  to  pass  now  to  a more  exact  exami- 
nation of  what  that  faith  means,  of  what  the  Incar- 
nation of  the  Son  of  God  teaches  us  about  the  God 
who  is  incarnate  and  about  the  manhood  which  He 
assumes.  But  in  doing  this,  we  shall  constantly  find 
the  need  of  some  definitions  of  the  terms  we  use,  and 
there  are  definitions  which  of  course  suggest  them- 
selves for  our  guidance,  ancient,  famous,  venerable, 
contained  in  the  catholic  creeds,  and  dogmatic  decis- 
ions of  the  general  councils  about  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

I. 

These  definitions  consist  in  substance  of  four  pro- 
positions ; 

(1)  that  as  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ  is  very  God, 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father ; 

88 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  8& 

(2)  that  as  Son  of  man,  He  is  perfectly  man,  in  the 
completeness  of  human  faculties  and  sympathies ; 

(3)  that  though  both  God  and  Man,  He  is  yet  one 
person,  namely  the  Son  of  God  who  has  taken  man- 
hood into  Himself ; 

(4)  that  in  this  incarnation  the  manhood,  though 
it  is  trulj^  assumed  into  the  divine  person,  still  re- 
mains none  the  less  truly  human,  so  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  of  one  substance  with  us  men  in  respect  of  His 
manhood,  as  He  is  with  the  Father  in  respect  of  His 
godhead. 

Now  of  these  dogmatic  formulas,  different  views 
are  taken.^ 

In  the  view  of  ancient  and  Anglican  orthodoxy, 
the  creeds  are  simply  summaries  of  the  original 
Christian  faith  as  it  is  represented  in  scripture. 
They  are  summaries  such  as  are  necessary  for  the 
purposes  of  a teaching  church,  to  serve  as  introduc- 
tions to  the  study  of  scripture  and  guides  to  its  scat- 
tered, but  consistent,  statements  and  implications: 
summaries  which  always  refer  us  back  to  scripture 
for  their  justification  or  proof,  it  being  the  function 
of  the  church  to  teach,”  as  the  phrase  goes,  the 
Bible  to  prove.”  And,  according  to  the  same  view, 
the  dogmatic  decision  of  councils  are  formulas  ren- 
dered necessary  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  guard 
the  faith  of  scripture  from  what  was  calculated  to 
undermine  it.  They  do  not  make  any  addition  to  its 
substance,  but  bring  out  into  light  and  emphasis  some 
of  its  most  important  principles. 

1 See  app.  note  25. 


90  THE  INCARISrATIOH  OF  THE  SOH  OF  GOD. 

This,  the  ancient  view  of  ecclesiastical  dogmas,  has 
never  been  abandoned  in  the  authoritative  documents 
of  the  Roman  Church,  but  some  Roman  controversial- 
ists, when  confronted  by  the  fact  that  ancient  Chris- 
tianity certainly  did  not  recognize  their  more  recent 
dogmas,  have  made  a reply  of  this  sort : It  is  true 
that  our  modern  theology  represents  an  advance  of 
the  religious  consciousness  of  Christendom  upon  an- 
cient catholicity,  but  the  catholic  theology  of  the 
fifth  century  represents  the  same  sort  of  advance 
upon  primitive  Christianity.”  Thus,  on  this  view 
the  ancient  decisions  of  councils  represent  simply  one 
stage  in  a gradual  process,  by  which  the  rudimentary 
consciousness  of  primitive  Christianity  was  gradually 
expanded  into  a great  dogmatic  system,  covering  a 
much  wider  area  of  positive  teaching  than  the  origi- 
nal Christian  faith,  and  supplying  a good  deal  of 
additional  information. 

With  a not  dissimilar  conception  of  the  facts,  but 
from  a widely-opposed  point  of  view,  the  theology  of 
the  councils  has  been  viewed  as  a needless  metaphysi- 
cal accretion  upon  genuine  Christianity  which  it 
would  do  well  to  get  rid  of.  Christianity  began  as  a 
moral  and  spiritual  ^^way  of  life.”  It  was  under 
Hellenic  influences,  and  by  incorporating  the  terms 
and  ideas  of  late  Hellenic  philosophy,  that  it  devel- 
oped its  theology.  It  can  throw  this  off  and  be  only 
the  freer  for  the  loss,  for  “ what  was  absent  from  the 
early  form  cannot  be  essential.”  Christianity  can 
end  as  it  began,  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and 
the  spirit  of  brotherhood,  for  its  substance  and  its  sum. 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  91 

These  are  the  current  views  about  church  dogma: 
we  are  concerned  with  them  here  only  so  far  as  is 
necessary  for  answering  the  question  which  forms  our 
subject  for  to-day  — ‘‘what  is  the  relation  of  the  the- 
ology of  the  creeds  and  dogmatic  decrees  to  the  faith 
of  the  New  Testament  in  Jesus  Christ?” 

II. 

Can  we  then  describe  in  general  outline  the  pro- 
cess connecting  the  church  of  the  New  Testament 
with  the  church  of  the  General  Councils  ? 

The  apostolic  churches  must  be  recognized  on  any 
view  which  can  make  a reasonable  claim  to  being 
historical,  as  a confederation  of  spiritual  societies, 
united  by  a common  faith  as  well  as  by  a common 
rule  of  life.  Their  relation  to  Christ’s  person,  that 
is,  their  belief  in  Him  as  the  Son  of  God,  who  had 
taken  their  nature  in  order  to  redeem  it,  and  had 
sent  His  Spirit  to  dwell  in  their  hearts,  did,  as  has 
been  already  pointed  out,^  involve  a theology  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  and  of  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Son.  This  theology  is  implied  from  the  first,^  not 
in  the  epistles  only,  but  in  the  utterances  of  our  Lord 
about  Himself  as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
and  also  in  the  Synoptists.  Even  the  least  theo- 
logical of  the  epistles,  that  of  St.  James,  implies  a 
theology  of  Christ’s  person,  by  identifying  Him  as 
Lord  with  the  Lord  J ehovah  of  the  Old  Testament. 

1 See  above,  pp.  23-25,  64  ff. 

2 See  on  following  paragraph  app.  note  26. 


92  THE  IKCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


A theology  is  conspicuous  again  in  the  formula  of 
baptism,  ‘‘into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.” 

It  has,  of  course,  often  been  made  an  objection 
against  the  originality  of  this  formula  that  it  is  only 
once  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  while  on  the 
other  hand,  the  phrase  “ to  be  baptized  in  (or  into) 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ” occurs  more  than  once 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.^  But  whatever  force 
such  an  objection  may  have  been  supposed  to  have, 
has  been  greatly  weakened  since  the  discovery  of  the 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  For  that  early  docu- 
ment, which  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  if  it  represented 
a Christianity  more  original  than  that  of  the  New 
Testament,  mentions  twice  over  the  formula  of  bap- 
tism into  the  three-fold  name,  and  thus  interprets 
the  expression  which  it  also  uses  in  common  with  St. 
Luke,  that  of  being  “ baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Lord.”  2 There  is,  in  fact,  no  difficulty  in  seeing  how 
the  two  phrases  could  be  used  indifferently ; for  he 
that  hath  the  Son  hath  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  also, 
and  to  be  baptized  into  the  “ name  ” or  revelation,  of 
the  Son  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  formula  of  the 
three-fold  name,  which  the  Son  reveals. 

That  this  “one  faith,”  in  the  three-fold  name  of 
God,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
in  the  incarnation  of  the  Son,  was  a main  connecting 
link,  or  basis  of  union,  among  the  apostolic  churches 
is  unmistakably  witnessed  in  the  documents  of  the 
New  Testament  and  the  sub-apostolic  epistles  of  St. 

1 Acts  viii.  16,  x.  48,  xix.  5.  2 Didache  vii.  1,  3,  ix.  5. 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  93 


Ignatius  and  St.  Clement.  This  has  become  a still 
more  certain  proposition,  since  the  missing  portions 
of  St.  Clement’s  letter  have  been  discovered,  and  the 
genuineness  of  the  Ignatian  letters  finally  vindicated. 
Thus  to  represent  the  original  Christianity  as  a way 
of  life  without  a theology,  as  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  and  nothing  more,  even  if  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  did  not  involve  a theology,  would  be  an 
arbitrary  act  which  could  only  be  paralleled  for 
unhistorical  boldness  by  (shall  we  say?)  the  identi- 
fication of  early  Christianity  with  the  mediaeval 
Papacy. 

There  was  then  from  the  first  a common  faith 
which  is  often  alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament  as 
‘‘  the  tradition  ” to  be  “ held  ” by  Christians,  or  the 

pattern  of  teaching  to  which  they  were  delivered,” 
or  the  apostolic  teaching,”  or  the  pattern  of  sound 
words,”  or  ‘Hhe  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the 
saints.”  ^ Thus  the  churches,  as  left  by  the  Apostles, 
believed  themselves  to  possess,  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  God’s  full  and,  for  this  world,  final  revelation 
of  Himself  to  man.  Their  duty  was  to  hold  this 
word  or  message  of  God  fast  till  the  end.  But  the 
revelation,  as  they  knew  it,  was  not  in  the  form  of 
ordered  knowledge ; its  meaning,  its  coherence,  its 
limits,  were  very  imperfectly  recognized,  its  termin- 
ology  was  not  exact.  The  faith  of  the  church  as  it 
expressed  itself  in  life,  in  worship,  in  fervent  state- 
ment, in  martyrdom,  was  vigorous  and  unmistakable 
in  meaning ; it  referred  back  for  its  authorization 
1 1 Cor.  xi.  2,  23,  etc.;  Rom.  vi.  17;  Acts  ii.  42;  2 Tim.  i.  13;  Jude  3. 


94  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


to  apostolic  teaching  and  apostolic  writings ; but  it 
was  a faith,  not  a science ; a faith  which  in  some  sub- 
apostolic  documents  finds  such  inexact  or  even  careless 
expression  as  impresses  upon  us  the  difference  between 
the  writers  within,  and  those  without,  the  canon4 
Then  the  church,  whom  we  cannot  help,  as  we 
watch  the  process,  speaking  of  as  a person,  is  seen 
subjected  to  a series  of  interrogations  from  various 
quarters.  The  most  important  of  her  questioners 
were  the  Gnostics.  Would  she  admit  these  half- 
orientalist, or  theosophist,  speculators,  with  their 
denial  of  the  unity  of  all  things,  their  belief  in  rival 
gods,  good  and  bad,  or  higher  and  lower  deities,  their 
denunciation  or  depreciation  of  the  material  world, 
their  rejection  of  the  Old  Testament  and  mutilation  of 
the  New,  their  denials  of  a real  incarnation,  their  depre- 
ciations of  simple  faith  and  exaltations  of  Gnosis  or 
abstract  speculation,  their  shifty  idealism  — would 
she  admit  these  bold  theorizers  into  fellowship,  on 
the  ground  of  a good  deal  in  Gnostic  asceticism  and 
mysticism  which  sounded  lofty  and  Christian  enough  ? 
Would  she  admit  Gnostics  to  brotherhood  and  let 
them  mould  her  creed?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
would  she  put  up  with  the  Ebionite’s  lower  view  of 
Christ  as  a prophet  like  Moses  or  Jonah,  or  a restorer 
of  primitive  religion  ? Might  the  Sabellian  regard 
her  Trinity  as  only  three  manifestations  of  a Unitarian 
God?  Might  the  Adoptionists  regard  Christ  as  a 
deified  man  ? So  she  was  cross-questioned,  and  with 
more  or  less  of  difficulty  and  hesitation  — like  a 
1 See  app.  note  27. 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  9i3 

person,  as  I say,  subjected  to  cross-questioning  about 
his  convictions  — she  elaborated  her  negative  answers 
and  so  interpreted  her  creed.  Finally,  in  response  to 
the  defined  positions  of  Arius  and  Apollinarius,  of 
Nestorius  and  Eutyches,  she  laid  down  clear  and 
formal  replies.  The  result  of  this  process  is  that  the 
church  passes  from  holding  her  faith  simply  as  a 
faith,  to  holding  it  with  a clear  consciousness  of  its 
intellectual  meaning  and  limits,  with  ready  formulas 
and  clearly  worked-out  terminology.  Great  theolo- 
gians have  done  good  service  at  different  stages  of 
this  process.  Ignatius,  Justin,  Irenseus,  Tertullian, 
Origen,  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  Augustine,  Leo,  leave  their  stamp  on 
the  church’s  terminology  and  thought,  but  no  one  of 
them  enslaved  her : she  corrects  their  one-sided  bias, 
when  such  becomes  apparent,  and  in  spite  of  strong 
pressure  on  this  side  and  on  that,  she  keeps  her  mid- 
dle way,  holding  together  the  terms  of  the  great  syn- 
thesis, which  is  involved  in  her  faith  in  God,  three  in 
one,  — in  Christ,  God  and  man,  the  highest  and  the 
lowest  made  one. 

Now  intellectually,  the  special  interest  of  this 
process,  which  connects  the  New  Testament  with  the 
creeds,  lies  in  two  points : 

First  we  observe  here,  as  perhaps  nowhere  else  in  his- 
tory, a corporate  consciousness,  the  mind  of  a society, 
gradually  taking  explicit  and  formal  shape.  Under- 
neath the  superficial  disturbances  of  the  church’s 
life,  one  steady  current  has  been  moving.  Beneath 
general  confusions  of  thought,  violent  partisanships, 


96  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

imperial  influences  — stronger  than  all  in  the  result, 
stronger  to  the  point  of  obliterating  the  traces  of 
their  action  from  the  final  product  — one  continuous 
faith  or  consciousness  has  been  holding  its  own  and 
gaining  clearer  expression.  We  have  other  instances 
in  history  of  the  genius  of  a nation  or  a society  find- 
ing expression.  It  is  the  Roman  genius,  and  not  the 
thought  of  any  individual  merely,  which  is  expressed 
in  Roman  law.  The  social  theory  of  Plato  and  Aris- 
totle has  behind  it  the  social  experiences  of  the  Greek 
city.  But  there  is  not,  I believe,  any  case  where  a 
product  which  appears  so  purely  intellectual  as  the 
formula  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,i  a product  so 
exact  and  definite,  can  be  ascribed  so  little  to  any 
individual  or  individuals,  can  be  regarded  with  the 
same  truth  as  the  expression  of  the  consciousness  of 
a historical  society,  gradually  through  many  efforts  of 
many  individuals,  elaborated  into  explicit  and  formu- 
lated utterance. 

Secondly,  the  intellect  is  attracted  by  the  balanced, 
antithetic,  form  of  the  dogmatic  product.  The  pe- 
riod of  the  ecumenical  councils,  like  the  period  of 
Gnosticism,  seemed  to  Christian  theologians,  who 
lived  in  it,  a scene  of  wild  confusion. ^ The  student 
of  its  ecclesiastical  history  to-day,  appears  to  himself 
to  be  fighting  his  way  through  a wild  sea  of  conflict- 
ing determinations  and  shifting  views.  Yet  out  of 
it,  by  some  process,  which  at  lowest  must  have  been 
the  survival  of  the  fittest,  emerged  a frame-work  of 
dogmatic  statement,  which  is  a very  synonym  for 
1 See  app.  note  28.  2 gee  app.  note  29. 


CHKIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHEIST  OF  SCRIPTIJKE.  9T 


unshaken  consistency  and  balanced  strength.  In  fact, 
the  thoughtful  man  cannot  look  back  upon  the  result 
of  that  period  without  being  struck  with  the  sense 
that  something  was  going  on,  greater  than  can  be 
accounted  for  by  what  appears  on  the  surface  of 
events.  For  on  the  surface  imperial  influences  or  the 
tyranny  of  chance  majorities  are  apparently  all-power- 
ful. In  spite  of  the  venerable  dignity  of  an  Athana- 
sius, a Basil,  a Gregory,  a Flavian,  a Leo,  there  is- 
violence  and  partisanship,  not  only  in  little  men,  but 
in  great  theologians,  like  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  Yet 
the  results  are  just  what  these  sorts  of  causes  cannot 
produce.  For  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don,  which  practically  sums  up  the  results  of  the 
epoch,  is  not  merely  a solid  and  substantial  frame- 
work ; it  has  another  quality  which  accidental  party 
majorities  could  never  have  produced ; it  has  balance, 
moderation,  reserve,  antithetic  exactness,  equal  re- 
spect for  both  elements  in  a double  truth.  It  is,  as  it 
was  called  from  the  first,  the  via  medial  which  mean^ 
not  the  way  of  compromise,  but  the  way  of  combina- 
tion  and  impartiality.  There  has  been  some  influence 
at  work  here  besides  what  has  appeared  on  the  surface 
of  history ; “ this  is  the  Lord’s  doing,  and  it  is  mar- 
vellous in  our  eyes.” 

III. 

But  the  dogmatic  product  is  something  more  than 
the  survival  of  the  Attest  formulas.  It  represents 
simply  and  faithfully,  in  language  supplied  by  the 

1 See  app.  note  30. 


98  THE  IHCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


Greek  philosophical  schools,  the  original  apostolic 
creed  in  Christ  the  incarnate  Son  of  God.  To  justify 
this  position  I must  recall  to  your  minds,  with  greater 
exactness,  what  are  the  four  main  determinations 
about  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  form  the 
material  of  the  Chalcedonian  formula. 

The  first  decision,  as  against  Arius,  assigned  to 
Christ  as  Son  of  God  the  epithet  oyu^ooucrm?,  ‘‘  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father.”  Arius’  conception  of 
Christ,  whatever  the  intellectual  motives  which  pro- 
duced it,  assigned  to  Him  in  effect  the  position  of  a 
demi-god.  Current,  non-Christian  religious  beliefs, 
popular  and  philosophical,  had  made  men  familiar 
with  the  notion  of  intermediate  beings,  the  objects  of 
religious  worship,  who  represented  on  a lower  plane, 
something  greater  and  more  eternal  behind  them- 
selves. In  particular,  philosophical  paganism  had 
given  currency  to  the  notion  of  a mediating  Mind, 
which  stood  half  way  between  the  material  world  and 
'the  absolute  and  unknowable  God.  On  this  model 
Arius  moulded  his  conception  of  Christ : a Christ 
whom  men  were  to  worship  and  treat  as  God,  while 
all  the  time  He  only  represented  God,  and  was  not 
God,  but  was  in  fact  a creature,  though  the  supreme 
creature,  and  if  older  than  all  others,  yet  not  eternal 
nor  really  belonging  to  the  being  of  God.  Observe 
then  that  in  repudiating  this  conception  of  Christ, 
and  in  declaring  it  to  be  un-Christian,  the  church 
was  not  only  for  her  Lord’s  honour  vindicating  His 
real  Godhead,  was  not  only,  as  she  believed,  defend- 
ing scripture  and  tradition,  but  was  also  reasserting 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  99 


the  first  principle  of  theism  as  distinct  from  panthe- 
ism and  idolatry.  For  the  very  principle  of  theism 
is,  that  there  is  no  gradual  descent  from  Creator  to 
creature,  no  intermediate  half-gods,  no  legitimate  mul- 
tiplication of  the  objects  of  worship.  Thus  if  Christ 
was  to  be  worshipped,  it  could  only  be  because  He 
was  God,  very  God;  belonging  to  the  one  eternal 
nature.  I shall  have  occasion  in  the  next  lecture  to 
develop  the  position  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  the  true  safeguard  of  theism.  Here  I 
am  only  concerned  to  point  out,  how  Christianity  in 
asserting  the  doctrine  of  the  ofioovacov  was  doing 
nothing  more  metaphysical  than  is  involved  in  assert- 
ing the  first  principle  of  the  Theist’s  creed,  that  there 
is  only  one  God,  one  supreme  object  of  worship,  that 
Christ  is,  if  God  at  all,  then  the  very  God  of  the 
Father’s  substance  and  essential  nature.  That  the 
aim  of  the  church  was  practical,  rather  than  meta- 
physical, is  in  fact  shown  by  her  being  content  to  use 
the  same  word  to  express  Christ’s  relation  to  God 
and  His  relation  to  man  — of  one  substance  ” with 
God,  ‘‘  of  one  substance  ” with  us  men.  It  was 
enough  for  her,  that  as  He  was  really  man,  so  also 
He  was  really  God. 

It  is  worth  noticing  that  we  have  independent 
witnesses,  such  as  Thomas  Carlyle  and  our  own 
Thomas  Hill  Green,  to  the  necessity  of  the  church’s 
action  in  the  condemnation  of  Arius.  ‘‘The  ten- 
dency of  Arianism,”  said  Prof.  Green,^  “ was  in  one 
respect  just  the  reverse  of  Gnosticism.  It  was  not 

1 On  Christian  Dogma,  see  his  Works,’’  iii.  p.  172. 


100  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

the  moral,  but  the  metaphysical  side  of  Christian 
thought  which  it  lowered,  and  we  owe  it  to  the  firm 
front  opposed  by  orthodox  dogma,  that  Christian  dog- 
ma is  still  a thing  of  the  present : one  need  not  be  an 
orthodox  trinitarian  to  see  that  if  Arianism  had  had 
its  way,  the  theology  of  Christianity  would  have 
become  of  a kind,  in  which  no  philosopher,  who  had 
outgrown  the  demonism  of  ancient  systems,  could  for 
a moment  acquiesce.”  Again,  Mr.  Froude  writes  of 
Thomas  Carlyle,^  ‘‘He  made  one  remark  which  is 
worth  recording.  In  earlier  years  he  had  spoken 
contemptuously  of  the  Athanasian  controversy,  — of 
the  Christian  world  torn  in  pieces  over  a diphthong : 
and  he  would  ring  the  changes  in  broad  Annandale 
on  the  Homoousion  and  the  Homoiousion.  He  now 
told  me  that  he  perceived  Christianity  itself  to  have 
been  at  stake.  If  the  Arians  had  won,  it  would  have 
dwindled  away  to  a legend.”  Nor  in  fact,  is  this 
mere  theory.  The  Goths  were  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity in  its  Arian  form ; they  accepted  Christ  as  a 
hero-God,  like  those  to  which  they  were  accustomed. 
Provided  thus  with  a platform  which  lay  between 
heathenism  and  Christianity,  they  came  to  a prema- 
ture halt.  The  Christianity  of  the  later  Goths  in 
Spain  appears  to  have  admitted  of  a certain  impar- 
tial veneration  for  the  Christian  God  and  heathen 
idols.  “We  do  not,”  says  Agila,  the  envoy  from  the 
Arian  Leovigild  to  Chilperic  at  Tours  — “ We  do  not 
reckon  it  a crime  to  worship  this  and  that : for  we 
say  in  our  common  speech,  it  is  no  harm  if  a man 
1 See  Life  in  London^  ii.  p.  462. 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  101 


passing  between  heathen  altars  and  a church  of  God 
makes  his  reverence  in  both  directions.”  ^ 

Thus  by  its  first  dogmatic  decision  the  church  at 
Nicsea  refused  to  admit  into  Christianity  the  concep- 
tion of  the  demi-god,  just  before  the  period  when  the 
rough  German  tribes,  to  whom  this  conception  was 
dangerously  familiar,  were  turned  over  to  her  for 
schooling.  That  Christ  was  very  God  of  very  God, 
fixed  itself  in  the  mind  of  an  able  and  interesting 
man,  Apollinarius  of  Laodicea.  As  being  God,  Christ, 
he  went  on  to  argue,  must  be  morally  unalterable  ; 
yet  He  is  in  some  sort  human,  and  the  human  mind 
and  will  is  alterable,  liable  to  sin  — nay,  he  seems  to 
have  thought,  necessarily  sinful.  How  then  can 
Jesus  be  human  ? To  solve  this  problem,  Apollina- 
rius endeavoured  to  develop  a systematic  theory  of 
the  person  of  Christ  on  the  basis  of  a more  or  less 
philosophical  psychology.  He  drew  a distinction  be- 
tween the  body,  the  soul  or  animal  life,  and  the 
reason  or  spirit,  in  man’s  nature,  — a distinction  to 
some  extent  sanctioned  by  St.  Paul;  and  he  con- 
ceived that  in  Christ  the  eternal  and  immutable  mind 
or  spirit,  the  Word  of  God,  took  the  place  of  the 
human  mind,  and  united  itself  to  the  soul  and  body, 
that  is  the  animated  body,  so  that  Christ  was  made 
up  of  the  Godhead,  manifesting  Himself  in  the  living 
body  of  man.  That  Christ  was,  as  thus  conceived,  if 
like  man,  yet  not  really  man,  because  without  that 
human  mind  or  spirit,  in  virtue  of  which  alone  the 

1 Greg.  Tur.  Hist»  Franc. j v.  44.  Cf.  Mr.  ScotPs  Uljilas  (Macmillan, 
1885),  cap.  V. 


102  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

body  in  man  becomes  human  and  not  merely  animat., 
— Apollinarius  frankly  recognized.  Yet  he  seems  to 
have  suggested,  that  the  archetype  of  manhood  exists 
in  God,  who  made  man  after  His  own  image,  so  that 
man’s  nature  in  some  sense  pre-existed  in  God.  The 
Son  of  God  was  eternally  human,  and  He  could  fill 
the  place  of  the  human  mind  in  Christ  without  His 
thereby  ceasing  to  be  in  some  sense  human.  Such 
refinements,  when  their  point  was  plain,  the  church 
again  met  with  a very  emphatic  negative : if  man  is 
made  in  God’s  image,  yet  man  is  not  God,  nor  God 
man.  It  is,  again,  a first  principle  of  theism,  as  dis- 
tinct from  pantheism,  that  manhood  at  the  bottom  is 
not  the  same  thing  as  Godhead.  This  is  a principle 
intimately  bound  up  with  man’s  moral  responsibility 
and  the  reality  of  sin.  Thus  the  interests  of  theism 
were  at  stake  in  this  controversy  no  less  really,  though 
less  obviously,  than  the  reality  of  Christ’s  human 
sympathies.  At  any  rate,  the  church  could  not  have 
Christ’s  real  humanity  explained  away.  He  had  a 
really  human  will,  human  mind,  human  reflective- 
ness, human  sympathies : He  was  completely  man 
in  all  human  faculties,  to  be  tempted,  to  pray,  to  suf- 
fer, to  learn,  as  truly  as  He  was  very  God.  That 
was  the  second  determination  — reasserted  in  the 
sixth  century  against  the  Monothelites,  in  connection 
with  the  truth  of  Christ’s  human  will. 

But  if  Christ  was  God  and  man  how  was  the  union 
to  be  conceived  of  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood  ? 
The  manhood  — so  insisted  a school  of  theologians 
from  Antioch  — if  it  be  truly  manhood,  must  have 


CHKIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHBIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  103 

free-will  and  self-determination.  Christ  then,  must 
be  really  a free  human  person,  how  then  is  He  God  ? 
Because,  they  replied,  God  unites  Himself  to  man  ; to 
all  men  in  proportion  to  their  merit,  to  Christ  in  a 
unique  and  exceptional  manner  on  account  of  His 
unique  and  exceptional  merit.  As  this  merit  was  fore- 
seen, so  the  man  Christ  Jesus  was  from  the  first  united 
in  a special  degree  with  God.  But  that  which  was  born 
of  Mary  was  not,  properly  speaking,  God  the  Son : it 
was  a human  child  Jesus,  who,  when  He  had  grown 
to  manhood,  became  Son  of  God  by  adoption  at  His 
baptism,  and  at  last  was  made  one  with  God  in  glory. 
This  was  the  theory  which,  as  originated  or  suggested 
by  the  famous  commentator  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
was  adopted  and  popularized  by  Nestorius.  But  the 
church  saw  clearly  enough  that  it  is  not  what  the 
Bible  teaches,  or  what  our  redemption  requires.  The 
Christ  of  Nestorius  was,  after  all,  simply  a deified  man, 
not  God  incarnate  : He  was  from  below,  not  from 
above.  If  He  was  exalted  to  union  with  the  Divine 
essence.  His  exaltation  was  only  that  of  one  individ- 
ual man.  This  is  not  the  Gospel,  that  “ the  Son  of 
God  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation  was  incarnate 
and  was  made  man.”  According  to  the  Gospel,  the 
person  who  was  born  of  Mary,  who  lived  and  taught 
and  died  upon  the  cross,  who  was  raised  again  the 
third  day  from  the  dead,  was  no  other  person  than 
the  eternal  Son  in  the  human  nature  which  He  had 
taken.  The  Nestorian  theory,  then,  was  met  with  a 
negative  as  emphatic  as  possible  in  the  decree  of 
Ephesus.  Jesus  Christ,  as  born  of  Mary,  was  truly 


104  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

God  incarnate,  albeit  it  was  only  in  respect  of  His 
manhood  that  Mary  was  His  mother.  This  was  the 
third  determination. 

Christ  then  is  God  incarnate.  In  Him  the  human 
nature  is  assumed  by  the  divine  Person.  But,  in  that 
case,  can  the  human  nature  be  said  to  remain?  No, 
persisted  an  abbot  of  Constantinople,  named  Euty- 
ches;  distinct  as  manhood  and  Godhead  are  before 
the  incarnation,  by  the  incarnation  the  manhood  loses 
its  own  proper  and  distinct  nature.  It  is  transub- 
stantiated into  that  which  assumed  it : it  is  no  longer 
of  our  substance.  Once  more,  this  position  was  met 
by  the  church  with  an  emphatic  negative  in  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  humanity  in  Christ 
remains  distinctively  what  it  was : it  is  not  trans- 
muted out  of  its  own  proper  character ; the  eternal 
person  assumes  the  human  nature,  and  acts  through 
it,  without  its  ceasing  to  be  human.  Christ,  who  is  of 
one  substance  with  the  Father  in  respect  of  His  God- 
head, is  of  one  substance  with  us  in  respect  of  our 
manhood,  and  that  for  ever.  In  Him  the  two  natures, 
divine  and  human,  subsist  in  the  unity  of  the  one 
person. 

This  is  the  last  determination  that  we  need  con- 
sider, for  later  ones  only  reassert  principles  already 
determined.  Thus  the  dogmatic  matter  is  summa- 
rized in  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  or 
in  the  more  familiar  language  of  that  exposition  of 
the  faith,  converted  into  a psalm  of  praise,  which  we 
call  the  Athanasian  Creed:  ‘‘for  the  right  Faith  is, 
that  we  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  105 


Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  God  and  Man;  God,  of  the 
Substance  of  the  Father,  begotten  before  the  worlds: 
and  Man,  of  the  Substance  of  His  Mother,  born  in  the 
world ; perfect  God,  and  perfect  Man : of  a reasonable 
soul  and  human  flesh  subsisting.  . . . Who  although 
He  be  God  and  Man,  yet  He  is  not  two,  but  one 
Christ ; One ; not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into 
flesh : but  by  taking  of  the  Manhood  into  God ; One 
altogether;  not  by  confusion  of  Substance:  but  by 
unity  of  Person.” 

IV. 

Now  these  decisions  do,  it  is  contended,  simply 
express  in  a new  form,  without  substantial  addition, 
the  apostolic  teaching  as  it  is  represented  in  the  New 
Testament.  They  express  it  in  a new  form  for  pro- 
tective purposes,  as  a legal  enactment  protects  a 
moral  principle.  They  are  developments  only  in 
the  sense  that  they  represent  the  apostolic  teaching 
worked  out  into  formulas  by  the  aid  of  a terminology 
which  was  supplied  by  Greek  dialectics. 

In  justifying  this  position,  it  is  obvious  to  admit, 
first  of  all,  that  the  earliest  language  of  the  apostolic 
teachers  has  not  the  explicitness  of  the  later  language 
of  the  church.  But  there  is  a development  inside 
the  New  Testament,  and  the  reason  of  this  gradual 
unfolding  of  teaching,  in  part  at  least  intentional,  is 
sufficiently  plain.  The  Apostles  themselves  had  been 
led  gradually  on  in  correspondence  with  their  con- 
sciences to  explicit  belief  in  Jesus  Christ.  They  led 
their  first  disciples  by  a similar  process.  To  have 


106  THE  INCAKNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  QOD. 

preached  ‘‘Jesus  Christ  is  God,”  nakedly  and  simply^ 
would  have  shocked  every  right-minded  Jew,  who 
would  have  seen  in  the  assertion  the  proclamation 
of  a second  God,  and  would  have  been  welcomed  by 
every  pagan,  only  too  easily,  because  he  believed  in 
“ Gods  many.”  Thus,  according  to  the  account  given 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  early  preaching  of 
St.  Paul  to  the  heathen  goes  to  lay  a basis  of  belief 
in  the  one  true  God  as  a background  for  Christianity, 
and  the  early  preaching  to  Jews,  or  those  under  Jew- 
ish influence,  goes  to  make  good  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ.  Both  Jews  and  Greeks  are  to  be  brought  to 
their  belief  in  Christ’s  true  nature,  through  accept- 
ance, along  different  lines  of  argument,  of  His  moral 
authority  and  divine  mission.  They  are  to  obey  and 
trust  Him  first  of  all,  that  is,  to  believe  in  Him  prac- 
tically ; and  so  afterwards  to  know  the  true  doctrine 
about  Him.  Thus  if  you  take  St.  Paul’s  early  epistles, 
those  of  the  first  two  groups,  or  the  first  epistle  of  St. 
Peter,  or  the  epistle  of  St.  James,  you  find  the  God- 
head of  Jesus  Christ  more  often  implied  than  asserted; 
but  when  you  advance  a step  further,  you  find  it 
dwelt  upon,  and  made  explicit  and  unmistakable, 
though  in  language  still  carefully  calculated  to  guard 
the  unity  of  God  and  the  truth  that  in  the  Father 
only  is  the  fount  of  Godhead  — as  in  the  great  dog- 
matic passages  of  St.  Paul’s  epistles  to  the  Philippians 
and  to  the  Colossians,  or  in  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, or  in  St.  John’s  epistles  and  his  Gospel.^ 

The  language  of  these  writings  is  such  that  I say, 

1 See  app.  note  31. 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  107 


not  only  that  is  there  nothing  in  the  decrees  of  the 
councils  that  is  not  adequately,  if  untechnically,  repre- 
sented there ; but  that  also,  whereas  the  decrees  of 
the  council  are  of  the  nature  of  safeguards,  and  are 
rather  repudiations  of  error  than  sources  of  positive 
teaching,  the  apostolic  language  is  a mine  from  Avhich, 
first  taught  and  guided  by  the  creed  of  the  church, 
we  can  draw  a continual  and  inexhaustible  wealth  of 
positive  teaching.  The  decrees  are  but  the  hedge, 
the  New  Testament  is  the  pasture-ground. 

Thus  to  come  to  details.  St.  John  calls  the  Word 
who  is  Christ  Jesus,  God  with  God,  God  only  be- 
gotten. He  is  represented  in  the  Revelation  as  the 
Lamb  receiving  the  adoration  given  to  God : Unto 
him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb, 
be  the  blessing,  and  the  honour,  and  the  glory,  and 
the  dominion,  for  ever  and  ever.”  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
Him  as  ‘‘  pre-existing  in  the  form,  or  characteristics, 
of  God,”  and  as  God  over  all.”  The  author  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrew's  calls  Him  the  “ very  image, 
or  counterpart,  of  God’s  substance.”  The  apostolic 
writers  generally  identify  Him  as  Lord,  with  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  Now  if  these  Apos- 
tles being  all  of  them  monotheist  Jews,  who  knew 
that  God  would  not  give  His  glory  to  another,  do 
thus  speak  of  Christ,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  doubt 
that  they  would  have  been  with  Athanasius  against 
Arius,  in  affirming  the  position  that  Christ,  as  Son  of 
God,  if  subordinate  to  the  Father,  yet  really  belongs 
to  God’s  eternal  being.^ 

1 St.  John  i.  1, 18;  Rev.  v.  13 ; Phil.  ii.  6 ; Rom.  ix.  5;  Heb.  i.  3. 


108  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Again,  the  Evangelists,  including  St.  John,  and 
the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  dwell  much 
on  the  complete  humanity  of  the  Son  of  man : on  the 
action  of  the  human  will  in  obedience,  of  the  human 
spirit  in  prayer,  of  the  human  mind  even  in  limita- 
tion of  knowledge.  St.  Paul  describes  Him,  as  tak- 
ing the  characteristics,  or  form,  of  man’s  servile 
nature.  St.  Peter  speaks  of  His  human  spirit,  side 
by  side  with  His  human  body.^  Can  we  doubt,  then, 
that  they  would  have  repudiated  Apollinarius  as 
warmly  as  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  (let  me  add)  more 
accurately  ? 

Once  again,  if  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Son  of  God 
as  emptying  Himself,  beggaring  Himself,  to  become 
man : if  he  speaks  of  the  Incarnate  as  having  come 
down”  from  heaven:  if  St.  John’s  theology  is  that 
of  the  Word  made  flesh  ” ; ^ is  there  room  for  ques- 
tion that  they  would  have  emphasized  against  Nesto- 
rius  the  continuity  and  unity  of  Christ’s  person  ? 

Finally,  if  St.  John  is  emphatic  against  all  attempts 
to  explain  away  the  reality,  and  the  permanent  real- 
ity, of  Christ’s  flesh : if  he  asserts  a Christ  not  only 
come,  but  still  ‘‘  to  come  in  the  flesh  ” : if  St.  Paul 
takes  the  present  glorified  state  of  Christ  as  the  pro- 
totype of  our  own  spiritual  body : if  the  manhood  of 
Christ  in  heaven  is  a truth  proclaimed  under  differ- 
ent forms  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ; ^ is  it  really  open  to  question 
that  the  apostolic  writers  would  have  regarded  Mono- 

1 1 St.  Peter  iii.  18 ; on  the  previous  reff.  see  further  Lecture  VI. 

2 Phil.  ii.  7 ; 2 Cor.  viii.  9 ; Eph.  iv.  9,  10 ; St.  John  i.  1-14. 

3 See  app.  note  32. 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  109 

physitism  or  the  absorption  of  manhood  into  God- 
head, as  inconsistent  with  right  belief  ? When  once 
these  four  problems  were  really  presented  to  them, 
though  they  must  have  deplored  the  necessity  for 
formal  legislation,  they  could  not,  I contend,  have 
refused  to  answer  them,  and  they  must  have  answered 
them  in  one  way. 

It  is  then  a fact  of  the  most  astonishing  kind,  that 
the  Hibbert  Lectures  recently  published,^  — which 
result  in  the  position,  that  the  theological  proposi- 
tions of  the  creed  are  no  part  of  original  Christianity 
and  need  be  no  part  of  the  Christianity  of  the  future, 
which  speak  of  Christianity  as  passing  from  being  a 
rule  of  life  in  the  beginning,  to  a creed  in  the  process 
of  centuries,  — should  actually  have  left  out  of  con- 
sideration the  theology  of  the  apostolic  writers.  Is 
there  theology  in  St.  Paul,  St.  John,  and  even  St. 
James?  Does  that  theology  represent  or  misrepre- 
sent the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ?  These  questions 
are  not  considered.  Is  the  theology  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  any  more  metaphysical,  or  only  more  technical, 
than  the  theology  of  St.  Paul  or  St.  John?  This 
question  again  is  not  considered.  Now  it  seems  to 
me  that  a book  written  about  the  development  of 
Christian  theology,  which  omits  any  real  examination 
of  the  New  Testament  writers,  is  like  a work  written 
to  account  for  the  later  French  empire  which  should 
omit  any  serious  consideration  of  the  great  Napoleon. 

It  may  then  be  said  with  undoubted  truth,  that  be- 
tween the  period  of  the  Apostles  and  the  period  of  the 

1 See  app.  note  25. 


110  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

councils  there  was  a great  development  of  theology. 
The  church  was  gradually  learning  to  use  that  exact 
terminology  with  which  the  Greek  genius  supplied 
her,  to  enshrine  her  creed.  In  the  process  of  learning 
to  express  their  thoughts  the  Christian  theologians 
made  abundant  mistakes;  phrases  can  be  produced 
from  Justin  Martyr,  or  Tertullian,  or  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  or  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  which  by  compari- 
son with  accurate  standards  must  be  pronounced  in- 
exact or  verbally  heretical.  But  these  have  either  to 
do  with  the  exact  statement  of  truth,  or,  much  less 
frequently,  express  some  exceptional  opinion  adopted 
by  this  or  that  individual  but,  on  reflection,  repudi- 
ated by  the  common  sense  ” of  Christians.  All 
along,  the  traditional  faith  which  men  are  endeavour- 
ing to  express,  from  Athanasius  and  Augustine  back 
to  Origen  and  Tertullian,  from  Origen  and  Tertullian 
back  to  Ignatius  and  Clement,  in  an  unbroken  stream 
of  tradition,  is  the  same  faith  in  the  realities  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.  Gradually  the  most 
exact  and  fitting  language  to  express  these  verities 
is  elaborated  in  testing,  sifting  controversy.  A theory 
which,  like  Gnosticism,  denied  the  unity  of  God  and 
of  the  universe,  or,  like  Ebionism,  denied  the  pre- 
existence of  the  Son,  can  never  put  in  any  fair  claim 
to  represent  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  or  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  churches.  As  we  look  back  at  the  issues 
raised  all  down  the  line  of  controversy,  we  see  plainly 
enough  that  the  rejected  heresies  do  in  fact  represent, 
like  Ebionism,  a deterioration  from  the  original  teach- 
ing, or,  like  Gnosticism,  a subversive  and  alien  doc- 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  Ill 


trine,  or,  like  Sabellianism  and  Arianism,  a one-sided 
logic ; the  church  dogma  meanwhile  has  held  the 
balance  and  preserved  the  apostolic  type. 

What  the  church  then  borrowed  from  Greek 
thought  was  her  terminology,  not  the  substance  of 
her  creed.  Even  in  regard  to  her  terminology  we 
must  make  one  important  reservation,  for  Christianity 
laid  all  stress  on  the  personality  of  God  and  of  man, 
of  which  Hellenism  had  thought  but  little.  Thus  the 
phrases,  hypostasis  ” or  persona,”  used  to  express 
personality,  have  an  altogether  new  shade  of  meaning 
given  to  them  to  meet  new  needs  of  thought.  Thus 
even  in  regard  to  phraseology,  Christianity,  in  its 
intense  consciousness  of  personality,  had  to  infuse 
its  own  meaning  into  the  terms  it  borrowed.  Still 
Greek  philosophy  did  supply  the  terms,  but  the  truth 
to  be  expressed  in  them  is  the  original  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ  the  Son  of  God  made  Son  of  man ; it  is  noth- 
ing else  than  this  which  at  last,  amid  the  tumult  of 
controversy,'  wins  its  way  to  clear  and  impressive 
utterance,  which  rings  down  the  ages  in  dominant 
and  unmistakable  notes. 


V. 

The  notes  of  the  catholic  creed  still  ring  on,  for 
the  Christian  dogmas  claim  the  same  permanence  as 
the  Christian  Church. 

In  considering  their  title  to  permanence,  a great 
deal  depends  on  the  spirit  in  which  they  are  ap- 
proached. It  is  necessary  that  they  should  be  fairly 


112  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

criticised,  but  also  that  they  should  be  appreciated 
before  they  are  criticised.  One  is  inclined  to  ask, 
breathes  there  a man  with  soul  so  dead  ” as  not  to 
feel  the  title  to  veneration  which  attaches  itself  to 
our  ancient  creeds  merely  because  they  are  ancient  ? 
Necessarily  a great  deal  in  human  life  changes ; 
science  grows,  criticism  advances,  institutions  vary, 
society  makes  its  way  to  new  forms  of  organization^ 
the  outward  fashions  of  life  pass.  All  this  is  obvious, 
and  inevitable,  and  the  ground  of  hope  for  the  future ; 
but  it  causes  all  of  us,  who  are  not  shallow-hearted^ 
only  to  love  more  intensely  anything  in  human  life 
which  does  not  change.  For  there  is  underneath 
what  is  variable  an  unchanging  region  in  man.  It 
is  one  main  pleasure  in  the  study  of  an  ancient  classi- 
cal literature  that  it  enables  us  to  shake  hands  across 
the  ages  with  men  of  other  days  and  other  races,  on 
the  basis  of  a common  manhood.  This  common 
manhood  is  especially  apparent  in  the  region  of 
poetry  and  in  the  region  of  religion.  A great  poet 
gets  down  below  the  surface,  to  what  is  permanent 
in  us:  ‘‘deep  in  the  general  heart  of  men,”  Words- 
worth says,  “ his  power  survives.”  What  delights  us 
in  the  verse  of  Homer,  for  instance,  is  in  great  meas- 
ure the  simple,  noble  expression  which  the  poet  of 
so  long  ago  gives  to  the  radical,  fundamental  passions, 
sorrows,  joys,  of  men  all  over  the  world.  Now  what 
is  true  of  poetry  is  true  also  of  religion  — pre- 
eminently true  of  the  religion  founded  by  Jesus 
Christ.  “ Deep  in  the  general  heart  of  men  His 
power  survives  ” ; for  He  evoked  into  consciousness, 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  IIS 

and  then  satisfied,  the  deepest  needs  and  instincts  of 
human  life.  Thus  He  founded  a catholic  religion, 
capable  of  infinite  adaptation  in  different  societies, 
but  appealing  to  the  manhood  which  does  not  change, 
in  the  name  of  an  unchanging  revelation  of  God  to 
man,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  ‘‘the  same  yester- 
day, to-day,  and  for  ever.”  As  a matter  of  fact,  this 
religion  has  found  expression  in  creeds  which  have 
already  during  fifteen  centuries  shown  their  capacity 
for  permanence  through  very  different  states  of  so- 
ciety. I say  then,  that  any  one  who  is  not  shallow- 
hearted  in  his  love  of  what  is  modern,  must  be  well- 
disposed  towards  the  catholic  creeds,  merely  because 
they  are  old,  because  they  represent  so  wide  and 
permanent  an  assent  of  the  redeemed  humanity,  be- 
cause they  offer  an  unchanging  basis  of  definite 
religious  instruction,  and  a form  of  religious  confes- 
sion which  unites  us,  as  we  repeat  it,  with  a great 
catholic  communion  of  many  ages  and  many  nations. 

I am  not  now  putting  the  claim  of  the  creeds  to 
permanence  on  any  ground  of  authority ; all  that  I 
am  asking  is  that  their  value  should  be  first  recog- 
nized and  felt,  before  they  are  criticised.  When  once 
they  are  thus  appreciated,  they  can,  I feel  sure,  jus- 
tify their  claims  to  be  legitimate  interpreters  and 
guardians  of  the  apostolic  faith  for  the  time  to  come. 

Is  there,  I ask,  anything  in  these  dogmas,  consid- 
ered in  themselves,  which  disqualifies  them  as  perma- 
nent safeguards  of  the  Christian  faith  ? Surely  not, 
unless  they  are  liable  to  be  superannuated  in  respect 
of  the  questions  they  raise,  or  the  answers  they  give, 


114  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

or  in  respect  to  the  phraseology  in  which  they  give 
their  answers.  But  the  questions  they  raise  are  the 
permanent  questions,  of  as  vital  moment  to-day  as 
ever  before.  Is  Christ  indeed,  as  Son  of  God,  really 
God?  Is  His  character  God’s  character.  His  love 
God’s  love?  Or  again,  is  He  really  man  in  human 
sympathies  and  human  faculties,  really  tempted, 
really  tried?  Or  again,  is  He  God  incarnate,  made 
man  for  our  redemption,  not  a splendid  example 
merely  of  one  man  deified?  Or  again,  is  He  still 
truly  human  in  nature  and  sympathy?  These  are 
living  problems,  vital  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
vital  to  the  general  heart  of  man.  Their  solution  in 
the  creeds  is  the  solution  necessary  to  safeguard  apos- 
tolic Christianity.  To  answer  them  in  the  opposite 
sense,  or  not  to  answer  them  at  all,  is,  in  different 
degrees,  to  allow  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
Gospel  to  be  undermined.  Lastly,  the  language  in 
which  they  express  their  decisions  shows  no  signs  of 
being  antiquated. 

It  may  be  truly  said  of  the  dogma  of  transubstanti- 
ation  that  it  is  couched  in  terms  of  a distinction  of 
substance  and  accidents  which  belongs  only  to  a par- 
ticular moment  in  philosophy : or  again  of  a popular 
doctrine  of  the  atonement,  that  it  is  couched  in  lan- 
guage, which  does  violence  to  man’s  moral  sense  ; but 
the  dogmatic  language  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
is  open  to  no  such  objection.  Its  language  is  perma- 
nent language,  none  the  less  permanent  because 
Greek.  The  Greek  language  was  in  fact  fitted,  as 
none  other  ever  has  been,  to  furnish  an  exact  and 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  115 

permanent  terminology  for  doctrinal  purposes.  The 
ideas  of  substance  or  thing,  of  personality,  of  nature, 
are  permanent  ideas ; we  cannot  get  rid  of  them ; 
no  better  words  could  be  suggested  to  express  the 
same  facts ; the  same  creeds  have  been  found  equally 
dear  to  the  heart  of  Greek  and  Roman  and  Teuton,  in 
the  age  of  Greek  philosophy,  in  the  age  of  mediaeval 
barbarism,  among  the  scholastic  philosophers,  in  the 
modern  nations  since  the  reformation.  In  our  own 
country  they  have  regained  their  ancient  value  since 
the  seculum  rationalisticum ” of  the  last  century: 
they  show  no  signs  of  losing  their  importance  in  the 
mind  of  those  who  hold,  or  desire  to  teach,  the  truths 
of  the  New  Testament. 

But  we  need  always  to  distinguish  the  permanence, 
from  the  adequacy,  of  our  dogmatic  language.  It  is 
as  good  as  human  language  can  be,  but  it  is  not 
adequate.  Human  language  never  can  express  ade- 
quately divine  realities.  A constant  tendency  to 
apologize  for  human  speech,  a great  element  of  ag- 
nosticism, an  awful  sense  of  unfathomed  depths 
beyond  the  little  that  is  made  known,  is  always 
present  to  the  minds  of  theologians  who  know  what 
they  are  about,  in  conceiving  or  expressing  God. 
‘‘We  see,”  says  St.  Paul,  “in  a mirror,  in  terms 
of  a riddle”;  “we  know  in  part.”  “We  are  com- 
pelled,” complains  St.  Hilary,  “to  attempt  what  is 
unattainable,  to  climb  where  we  cannot  reach,  to 
speak  what  we  cannot  utter ; instead  of  the  mere  ado- 
ration of  faith,  we  are  compelled  to  entrust  the  deep 
things  of  religion  to  the  perils  of  human  expression.”  ^ 
1 St.  Hil.  De,  Trin.  ii.  2,  4. 


116  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


VI. 

Let  me  conclude  by  asking  you  to  entertain  three 
considerations,  calculated  not  to  diminish,  but  to 
restrain  within  just  limits,  our  sense  of  the  value  of 
the  dogmatic  decrees  of  the  councils  on  the  subject 
of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

(1)  The  form  of  these  dogmas,  as  distinct  from 
the  creeds,  is  negative  rather  than  positive.  They 
are  intended  to  say  no  ” rather  than  yes,”  to  deny 
rather  than  to  teach.  This  is  apparent  from  their 
history.  Certain  interpretations  of  the  old  faith  had 
been  suggested,  calculated  to  undermine  its  founda- 
tions, and  the  church  met  them  with  a negative. 
Test-words,  selected  to  embody  these  negations,  were 
adopted  to  guard  the  old  faith,  without  adding  to  it, 
by  simply  blocking  off  false  lines  of  development  or 
explanation  on  this  side  or  on  that.  An  indirect 
positive  influence  these  negations  undoubtedly  had, 
but  it  was  indirect  and  unintended.  The  old  sources 
of  positive  information  remained  the  same,  the  creed 
to  initiate  and  the  scriptures  to  give  further  enlighten- 
ment. Nothing  in  fact  can  exceed  the  urgency  with 
which  the  Fathers  press  upon  all  Christian  people 
the  obligation  of  building  themselves  up  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  faith  by  intercourse  with  scripture. 
This  was  a principle  of  great  importance.  Would 
that  it  had  been  continuously  borne  in  mind ! But 
in  fact  the  dogmatic  decisions  of  the  church,  like 
other  good  things,  have  been  greatly  misused.  And 


CHBIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  117 


how?  By  being  treated  as  sources  of  our  positive 
information  about  Christ,  practically  overriding  the 
Gospel  picture. 

Thus  the  Gospels  present  us  with  a Christ,  divine 
and  human,  whose  personality,  if  complex  and  diffi- 
cult to  analyze,  yet  presents  a marvellous  and  im- 
pressive unity.  The  four  great  dogmas  are  our 
guides  in  contemplating  the  picture,  and  the  Gospels 
respond  to  the  anticipations  which  they  raise,  and  fill 
up  the  meagre  outline  into  a living  whole.  They 
show  us  a Christ,  really  one  with  God  and  really 
made  man ; Himself  God,  but  acting  in  love  to  us 
under  conditions  of  growth  and  experience  and  limi- 
tation and  suffering  and  victory,  which  really  belong 
to  the  manhood  which  He  took  — took,  not  as  the 
veil  of  His  glory  merely,  but  as  the  real  sphere  of  His 
action.  But,  take  up  a mediaeval  or  later  dogmatic 
treatise  on  the  Incarnation,  and  follow  the  course  of 
the  argument.  It  lays  down  first  of  all  the  funda- 
mental dogmas,  and  then  proceeds  to  argue  that  such 
and  such  results  must  follow.  As  the  manhood  is 
taken  into  personal  union  with  the  Godhead,  so  as 
man,  Jesus  Christ  must  have  possessed,  infused  into 
His  manhood,  all  that  it  is  capable  of  receiving,  and 
that  from  the  first ; but  manhood  is  capable  of  enjoy- 
ing the  fulness  of  the  beatific  vision,  the  knowledge 
of  all  things  past,  present,  and  future  ; therefore  the 
manhood  of  Christ  had  all  knowledge  of  past,  present, 
and  future,  and  the  fulness  of  the  beatific  vision; 
therefore.  He  can  never  have  been  ignorant  even  in 
His  human  mind.  He  can  never  have  grown  to  know 


118  THE  INCAKNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

what  He  did  not  know  before.  He  can  never  have 
experienced  any  break  in  the  vision  of  God.  Athwart 
the  course  of  such  abstract  argumentation  occur  in- 
terjected certain  isolated  texts  of  scripture : “ Of 
that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the 
Son.”  ‘‘He  grew  in  wisdom.”  He  cried,  “My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? ” Rapidly 
they  are  explained  away.  Alternative  “interpreta- 
tions ” are  suggested,  which  in  fact  do  not  interpret, 
but  contradict;  and  we  are  assured  that  our  Lord 
only  seemed  to  grow  in  wisdom,  but  really  had  no 
need  for  growth,  or  said  He  did  not  know,  meaning 
only  that  He  would  not  tell,  or  cried  out  as  if  He 
were  desolate,  while  in  fact  He  was  never  really 
deprived  of  the  consolations  of  the  Father’s  presence. 
Thus  we  are  led  on  through  a series  of  deductions, 
drawn  syllogistically  from  the  abstract  dogmas,  con- 
sidered as  positive  sources  of  information  — the  iso- 
lated Bible  texts  being  used  only  as  illustrations,  or 
as  supplying  material  to  be  explained  away.  This  is 
the  misuse  of  dogma,  not  its  use.  The  dogmas  are 
only  limits,  negatives  which  block  false  lines  of  de- 
velopment, notice-boards  which  warn  us  off  false 
approaches,  guiding  us  down  the  true  road  to  the 
figure  in  the  Gospels,  and  leaving  us  to  contemplate 
it  unimpeded  and  with  the  frankest  gaze. 

(2)  In  the  idea  of  the  Fathers  of  the  councils  it 
was  only  necessity  which  justified  their  dogmatic 
decisions : it  was  not  supposed  that  the  church  was 
better  off  for  religious  knowledge,  in  virtue  of  these 
specific  requirements,  in  advance  of  the  old  baptismal 


CHKIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  119 

creed,  or  that  it  was  the  church’s  function  to  develop 
them,  to  God’s  glory  and  man’s  good.  It  was  simply 
that  an  insidious  form  of  misbelief  appeared  within 
the  church,  calculated  to  undermine  her  life,  and 
that  circumstances  facilitated,  and  prudence  sug- 
gested, a particular  way  of  meeting  the  danger.  A 
new  word,  a new  formula,  like  the  o^ooucr^o?,  was,  as 
such,  an  object  of  suspicion.  We,  with  our  experi- 
ence, may  shrink  from  calling  these  dogmatic  decis- 
ions necessary  evils,”  because  we  may  feel,  not  only 
that  they  have  acted  as  safeguards  of  true  Christian 
belief  through  dull  and  irreligious  periods,  but  also 
that  the  faith  has  really  been  better  expressed  in 
their  terms  and  in  consequence  better  understood. 
But  we  shall  not  fall  into  the  error  of  supposing 
that  the  test  of  a church’s  spiritual  power,  the  test 
of  its  vital  development,  is  the  amount  of  its  dog- 
matic requirement.  It  is  very  possible  that  a frame- 
work of  dogma  was  necessary  for  the  church,  but 
that  it  is  a real  good  only  within  very  moderate 
limits.  On  the  basis  of  a moderate  amount  of  central 
dogma,  it  may  be  the  discipline  intended  for  every 
Christian,  that  he  should  grow  according  to  the  meas- 
ure of  his  opportunity  and  capacity  into  a fuller  and 
fuller  perception  of  the  meaning  of  the  faith.  If  we 
consider  that  in  society  a little  government,  a certain 
amount  of  external  enactment  regulating  life,  is  a 
good,  but  over-legislation  is  an  evil,  it  is  obvious  that 
a similar  reserve  of  theological  legislation  may  be 
the  ideal  for  the  church.  It  may  have  been  desir- 
able to  guard  dogmatically  the  central  truths  of 


120  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Christ’s  person,  but  undesirable,  quite  apart  from 
questions  of  truth  or  error,  to  do  the  same  for  the 
dependent  doctrines.  All  the  church’s  positive 
teaching  need  not  be  made  matter  of  dogmatic  re- 
quirement. At  least  it  is  a fact,  that  the  dogmas 
which  have  the  assent  of  the  whole  church  and  which 
are  imposed  in  the  English  Church,  are  few  in  num- 
ber, and  we  can  see  in  this  the  hand  of  providence. 

(3)  As  concerns  the  method  of  the  conciliar  action, 
I would  ask  you  to  note  how  the  appeal  of  the 
church  is  apparently  less  intellectual  than  that  of 
the  different  heretical  teachers,  but  issues  in  a deeper, 
more  rational,  position. 

Arius  appealed  chiefly  to  logic : of  a shallow  sort 
we  feel,  but  still  logic : as  that  a son  must  be 
younger  than  his  father.”  Apollinarius  appealed  to 
certain  abstract  conceptions  of  the  divine  unchange- 
ableness, and  to  a current  psychology  of  human 
nature.  Nestorius  took  his  stand  on  an  extreme  doc- 
trine of  human  liberty  or  indeterminateness.  The 
church  in  all  cases  made  its  appeal  to  tradition, 
scripture,  and  the  practical  needs  of  redemption: 
when  she  was  satisfied  as  to  the  result  of  this  three- 
fold appeal,  she  spoke  decisively,  and  left  it  to  theo- 
logians and  philosophers  afterwards  to  show  the 
reasonableness  of  her  action.  Her  function  was  only 
to  guard  a deposit.  But  in  the  result  it  is  not  hard 
to  see  that  the  logic  of  Arius,  or  Apollinarius,  or 
Nestorius,  was  one-sided  and  very  far  from  final, 
while  a far  deeper  philosophy  underlies  the  via  media 
of  the  church.  The  foolishness  of  God  is  wiser 
than  men.” 


CHRIST  OF  DOGMA  THE  CHRIST  OF  SCRIPTURE.  121 

This  will  become  plainer  as  we  go  on,  but  I ask 
you  to  notice  before  we  separate  that  the  reproof 
given  to  a hasty  logic  in  these  ecclesiastical  decisions 
is  specially  wholesome  in  the  sphere  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. St.  Paul  in  the  passage  which  I make  my 
text,  as  elsewhere,  teaches  us  that  the  right  way  to 
understand  the  action  of  God  in  the  Incarnation  is  to 
contemplate  it  morally.  It  is  an  act  of  moral  self- 
denial  such  as  can  be  an  example  to  us  men  in  our 
efforts  at  sympathy  and  self-sacrifice.  Let  this 
mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus.” 
But  after  all,  all  such  efforts  on  our  part  do  more  or 
less  defy  logical  analysis.  The  power  of  sympathy 
is  a power  of  self-abandonment,  or  self-effacement, 
which  enables  a man  to  abjure  the  platform  of  a 
rightful  superiority,  and  enter  into  the  conditions 
of  another  person’s  experience,  thinking  with  his 
thoughts,  seeing  with  his  eyes,  feeling  as  he  ought  to 
feel,  and  so  raising  him,  as  it  were,  from  within.  Of 
such  self-abandoning  sympathy  the  Incarnation  of 
God  is  the  prototype : it  is  more  intelligible  to  the 
heart  than  to  the  head : but  this  is  exactly  what  is 
true  of  all  self-sacrifice  and  sympathy.  Logic  cannot 
analyze  the  phrases,  self-surrender,”  entering  into 
another’s  pain,”  yet  they  express  realities.  We  can- 
not get  far  with  logic,  then,  in  understanding  the 
method  of  divine  love.  Its  value  is  negative  rather 
than  positive.  It  is  not  the  platform  of  the  schools 
on  which  we  must  take  our  stand  for  an  effective 
vision ; it  is  not  the  abstract  consideration  of  divine 
attributes,  to  which  we  must  trust  for  insight  into 


122  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

the  mystery,  whether  applied  on  the  side  of  rationalism 
or  of  dogmatism.  We  must  approach  the  matter  rather 
with  the  moral  conception  of  deliberate  sympathy,  such 
as  does  not  save  de  haut  en  has  by  acts  of  power  from 
its  own  vantage-ground,  but  comes  down  into  another’s 
condition  to  lift  him  from  below.  Let  this  mind  be  in 
you  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus,  who,  pre-existing 
in  the  characteristics  of  God,  thought  not  equality 
with  God  a prize  to  be  clutched  at,  but  emptied  Him- 
self, and  took  the  characteristics  of  a servant,  and 
was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men : and  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a man.  He  humbled  Himself,  and  be- 
came obedient,  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross.  Wherefore  God  also  highly  exalted  Him,  and 
bestowed  upon  Him  the  name  that  is  above  every 
name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should 
bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth;  and  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father.” 


LECTURE  V. 


GOD  KEVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 

Neither  doth  any  know  the  Father^  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom- 

soever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  him.  — St.  Matthew  xi.  27. 

He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father.  — St.  John  xiv.  9. 

Many  passages  in  the  apostolic  writings  form  a 
commentary  on  these  words  of  our  Lord  about  Him- 
self. ‘‘No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time”;  says 
St.  John,  “ God  only  begotten,  which  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him.”  ^ He  is  “ the 
image  of  God,”  or  “ the  image  of  the  invisible  God,” 
says  St.  Paul.2  He  is  “ the  express  image  of  his  sub- 
stance,” writes  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews.^ These  words  of  our  Lord  and  of  His  apos- 
tolic interpreters  convey  the  same  impression.  The 
Son  reveals,  the  Father,  the  apparent  Christ  reveals 
the  unapparent  God.  He  alone  does  this,  or  can  do 
this ; and  He  can  do  it  without  any  risk  of  mistake^ 
because  He  is  essentially  the  Father’s  image.  We  can 
contemplate  therefore  the  intelligible  lineaments  of 
the  human  character  of  Jesus,  and  in  Him  indeed 
behold  the  very  God.  “We  beheld  his  glory,”  St, 
John  bears  witness,  “glory  as  of  the  only  begotten 
from  the  Father” ; “ The  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ,”  says  St.  Paul.^ 

1 St.  John  i.  18.  (R.V.  marg.)  3 Heb.  i.  3. 

2 2 Cor.  iv.  4 ; Col.  i.  15.  ^ gt.  John  i.  14 ; 2 Cor.  iv.  6. 

123 


124  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


I. 

When  the  fathers  of  the  council  of  Nicaea  insisted 
so  strenuously  on  the  doctrine  of  the  one  substance 
of  the  Son  and  the  Father  — the  doctrine,  that  is, 
that  the  Son  belongs  to  the  Father’s  eternal  nature, 
and  is  not  a mere  subsequent  creation  of  His  will  — 
they  were  influenced  by  no  consideration  more  seri- 
ously than  by  the  practical  needs  of  redemption. 
Christ  is  our  salvation,  because  in  being  united  to 
Him,  we  are  united  to  nothing  less  than  God  Him- 
self. But  a most  important  element  of  salvation  is 
revelation.  Man  in  being  united  to  God  is  to  know 
God,  and  here  again  everything  depends  upon  the 
truth  about  Christ’s  person.  For  the  Christian  reve- 
lation is  not  a mere  message  about  God,  it  is  the 
unveiling  of  God.  We  are  to  contemplate  Christ, 
that  human  character,  so  profound  yet  so  intelligible, 
its  methods,  its  motives,  its  principles  — and  we  are 
to  know  that  it  is  not  the  character  of  any  mere 
creature,  but  of  God  Himself.  A creature  can  never 
be  complete.  One  quality  belongs  to  one,  another 
to  another ; no  one  occupies  the  whole  ground  of  pos- 
sible existence.  If  Christ  is  only  a creature.  His 
qualities  can  only  occupy  a certain  space  in  the  area 
of  God’s  revelation  of  Himself.  We  have  not  got  to 
what  is  ultimate  and  all-embracing  in  getting  to  Him. 
But  if  He  is  God,  it  makes  all  the  difference ; in  Him 
dwells,  not  one  quality  of  God,  but  ‘‘  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily.”  ^ His  love  is  the  ultimate 


1 Col.  ii.  9. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


125 


love.  The  relation  which  love  holds  to  justice  or  to 
any  other  quality  in  Him,  is  the  relation  which  it 
holds  in  the  ultimate  reality;  His  aims  are  God’s 
aims ; His  will  God’s  will ; His  victory  God’s  vic- 
tory. No  different  or  more  real  power  lies  behind 
Him.  Here  is  the  ultimate  secret.  This  is,  St.  John 
says,  the  genuine  God,  made  intelligible  and  inter- 
preted in  the  manhood  of  His  Son.^ 

Some  thirty-three  years  ago,  a great  controversy 
was  originated  in  this  pulpit  by  a Bampton  lecturer, 
who  took  for  his  subject,  ^‘The  limits  of  religious 
thought.”  2 Dean  Mansel  held  in  little  esteem  the 
pretensions  of  the  Hegelian  school  in  Germany  to 
criticise  by  the  standard  of  rationality  the  contents  of 
divine  revelation.  Revelation,  he  held,  was  a fact. 
We  had  evidence  that  it  had  really  been  given,  and 
certificated  by  miracles.  On  this  evidence  all  the 
stress  must  be  laid.  Granted  that  it  is  cogent,  we 
must  accept  the  revelation  as  it  has  been  given.  We 
have  not  the  faculties  necessary  to  criticise  what  God 
has  been  pleased  to  tell  us  about  Himself.  ‘‘Nay 
but,  O man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God  ? ” 
Unfortunately  Mansel  did  not  confine  himself  to 
re-emphasizing  Butler’s  strong  protest,  as  valuable 
to-day  as  in  the  last  century,  against  the  easy  over- 
estimate of  the  powers  of  the  human  mind  to  judge 
d priori  of  what  is  probable  in  a divine  revelation. 
He  went  further,  and  exposed  himself  to  the  charge 
of  denying  that  we  have,  or  can  have,  any  real  and 
direct  knowledge  of  God  Himself  at  all.  “We  can- 

1 1 St.  John  V.  20,  2 g00  app^  note  33. 


126  THE  INCARHATIOH  OF  THE  SOH  OF  GOD. 

not  know  what  God  is,”  he  seemed  to  say,  ‘‘but  only 
what  He  chooses  us  to  believe  about  Himself.”  Thus 
we  cannot,  for  example,  argue  against  a certain  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement  on  the  ground  of  its  injustice 
or  hardness,  because  we  do  not  know  what  justice  or 
goodness  in  God  means.  Human  qualities  are  not 
necessarily  of  the  same  sort  as  the  divine. 

This  form  of  Christian  apology  produced  an  indig- 
nant protest  from  Frederick  Denison  Maurice,  and 
drew  from  John  Stuart  Mill  the  passionate  exclama- 
tion : “ I will  call  no  being  good  who  is  not  what  I 
mean  when  I apply  that  epithet  to  my  fellow-creatures, 
and  if  such  a being  can  sentence  me  to  hell  for  not  so 
calling  him,  to  hell  I will  go.”  ^ It  was  an  exclama- 
tion, not  easy  to  accommodate  to  the  philosophy  of 
the  greatest  pleasure,  but  it  finds  a response  without 
a doubt  in  the  Christian  conscience.  For  if  anthropo- 
morphism as  applied  to  God  is  false,  if  God  does  not 
exist  in  man’s  image,  yet  theomorphism,  as  applied  to 
man,  is  true ; man  is  made  in  God’s  image,  and  his 
qualities  are,  not  the  measure  of  the  divine,  but  their 
counterpart  and  real  expression. 

Man  was  made  in  God’s  image.  The  significance 
of  this  truth  from  our  present  point  of  view  is,  that  in 
that  original  constitution  of  manhood  lies,  as  the 
Fathers  saw,  the  prophecy  of  the  divine  Incarnation 
and  the  grounds  of  its  possibility.  God  can  express 
Himself  in  His  own  image.  He  can  express  Himself 
therefore  in  manhood.  He  can  show  Himself  as  man* 
And  conversely,  in  the  occurrence  of  the  Incarnation, 
1 See  Exam,  of  Sir  W,  Hamilton's  Philosophy  (Longmans,  1872),  p.  129* 


GOD  KEVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


127 


lies  the  supreme  evidence  of  the  real  moral  likeness 
of  man  to  God.  All  along,  through  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, inspired  teachers  with  growing  spirituality  of 
conception,  had  been  expressing  God  in  terms  of 
manhood  — taking  the  human  love  of  the  mother  for 
her  child,  or  of  the  husband  for  his  adulterous  wife, 
to  explain  the  divine  love : and  in  the  Incarnation  all 
this  finds  its  justification.  In  the  person  of  the  Incar- 
nate we  see  how  true  it  has  been  all  along  that  man  is  in 
God’s  image  : for  this  is  man,  Jesus  of  Nazareth ; His 
qualities  are  human  qualities,  love  and  justice,  self- 
sacrifice  and  desire  and  compassion ; yet  they  are  the 
qualities  of  none  other  than  the  very  God.  So  akin 
are  God  and  man  to  one  another  that  God  can  really 
exist  under  conditions  of  manhood  without  ceasing  to 
be,  and  to  reveal,  God ; and  man  can  be  taken  to  be 
the  organ  of  Godhead  without  one  whit  ceasing  to  be 
human.  Here  in  Christ  Jesus,  it  is  man’s  will,  man’s 
love,  man’s  mind,  which  are  the  instruments  of  God- 
head, and  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  which  is  reveal- 
ing itself  only  seems  to  make  these  qualities  more 
intensely  human. 


n. 

We  have  then  in  Jesus  Christ  a real  knowledge  of 
God,  expressed  in  terms  of  humanity.  What  then  is 
it  in  our  knowledge  of  God  which  was  brought  to 
light,  or  at  least  finally  guaranteed,  in  His  incar- 
nation ? 

(1)  In  the  first  place  let  us  rank  His  personality,. 


128  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Of  course  this  truth  was  not  first  intimated  in  the 
Incarnation.  It  had  been  subject-matter  of  the 
older  revelation.  And,  though  in  fact  it  is  doubtful 
whether  a clear  sense  of  one  personal  God  has  ever 
been  arrived  at  by  any  race,  except  as  an  outcome 
more  or  less  direct  of  God’s  revelation  of  Himself  to 
Abraham,  yet  there  are  arguments  which  of  them- 
selves strongly  suggest  God’s  personality,  and  which 
many  modern  philosophers,  such  as  Lotze  and  Marti- 
neau,  have  found  irresistibly  cogent.  But  in  Christ 
our  sense  of  God’s  personality  is  raised  at  least  to  a 
new  level  of  certainty  and  intensity,  and  with  it  the 
corresponding  sense  of  personality  in  man  as  well. 

Compare  Christianity  with  a system  based  on  an 
opposite  principle,  and  observe  the  contrast.  To  the 
Buddhist  personality  is  an  evil,  a hindrance : spiritual 
progress  lies  in  the  gradual  evacuation  of  conscious- 
ness, of  desire,  in  a word,  of  personality.  With 
Christ,  the  case  is  the  opposite : I am  come,”  He 
said,  ‘‘that  they  may  have  life  — full  personal  con- 
scious life  — and  may  have  it  abundantly.”  “ Who- 
soever shall  lose  his  soul,  or  life,  for  my  sake,  the 
same  shall  save  it.”  ^ For  the  elimination  of  selfish- 
ness is  only  to  strengthen  personality.  So  Christ 
attends  to,  respects,  develops,  educates  personality  in 
his  little  band  of  Apostles ; and  that  because  to  be- 
come like  Him,  they  must  realize  personality  in  its 
depth,  its  fulness,  its  distinctiveness.  In  Him  it  was 
no  accident,  nothing  which  He  had  assumed  for  a 
time  or  of  which  He  could  rid  Himself ; it  belonged 

^ St.  John  X.  10,  St.  Luke  ix.  24. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


129 


to  His  eternal  nature ; over  against  the  Father  in  the 
eternal  world,  He  stood  person  with  person,  a son 
with  His  father.  It  was  because  He  was  eternally 
personal  that  He  had  been  able  to  give  personality 
to  a human  nature.^  Yes,  as  we  gaze  at  the  personal 
Christ,  incarnate  God,  we  are  sure  that  whatever  else 
God  is,  above  and  beyond  what  we  understand  by 
personality  — and  we  can  depend  upon  it  that  He 
is  infinitely  above  and  beyond  what  we  can  compre- 
hend, — yet  He  is  at  least  personal ; for  He  has  mani- 
fested His  personality  to  us,  and  made  it  intelligible, 
in  a human  nature,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  hu- 
man nature  loses  not  one  whit  of  its  humanity  because 
the  personality  which  is  acting  in  it  is  the  personality 
of  very  God. 

(2)  Secondly,  we  are  taught  by  the  Incarnation 
that  the  quality  of  the  divine  personality  is  love. 

The  thought  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  in  that 
moral  sense  which  implies  His  love,  is  so  familiar,  at 
least  superficially,  to  us,  that  the  less  thoughtful 
among  us  are  apt  to  assume  it  as  something  self- 
evident  ; as  if  it  were  a matter  of  course  apart  from 
Christ’s  revelation.  But  it  does  not  require  much 
thought  to  enable  us  to  perceive,  or  much  bitter 
experience,  or  much  sympathy,  to  enable  us  to  feel, 
that  the  world  apart  from  Christ  gives  us  no  adequate 
assurance  that  God  is  Love.  The  Psalmist  indeed 
argues,  ‘‘  He  that  made  the  eye,  shall  He  not  see  ? ” 
and  Robert  Browning  has  taught  us  to  add:  ‘‘He 
that  created  love,  shall  He  not  love  ? ” But,  if  love 
See  app.  note  34. 


130  THE  II^CARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

in  man  argues  love  in  God,  whose  offspring  he  is,  yet 
there  is  much  on  the  other  hand  to  give  us  pause  in 
drawing  such  a conclusion.  Not  only  the  inexorable, 
remorseless  aspect  of  physical  nature  seems  against 
it,  but  also  the  fact  that  love  even  in  humanity,  as  we 
contemplate  it  writ  large  ” in  history,  appears  often 
feeble  and  helpless  by  the  side  of  his  lust,  his  bitter- 
ness, his  cruelty,  his  selfishness,  his  untrustworthi- 
ness. That  God  is  love  means,  of  course,  not  merely 
that  there  exists  such  a thing  as  love  in  the  world, 
nor  merely  that  it  represents  something  in  God.  It 
carries  with  it  also  the  assurance  that  love  is  the  mo- 
tive of  creation,  and  the  realization  of  the  purpose  of 
love  its  certain  goal : that  love  exists  in  that  supreme 
perfection  in  which  the  universality  of  its  range  over 
all  creatures  diminishes  nothing  from  its  particular 
application  to  each  individual.  That  love  is  God’s 
motive ; that  love  is  victorious ; that  love  is  universal 
in  range  and  unerringly  individual  in  application,  in 
a word  that  Grod  is  love  — it  is  this  that  our  Lord 
guarantees,  because  He  has  translated  divine  love 
into  the  intelligible  lineaments  of  the  corresponding 
human  quality.  We  behold  in  Jesus  love  the  motive, 
love  individualizing,  love  impartial  and  universal,  love 
victorious  through  death  ; and  he  that  hath  seen  Him, 
we  know  hath  seen  the  Father ; His  love  is  the  Father’s 
love ; there  is  nothing  behind  it  to  overcome  it,  nothing 
outside  it  to  escape  it,  nothing  below  it  to  be  too  small 
for  it.  This  is  the  Christian  Gospel. 

We  must  observe  that  this  revelation  of  the  love 
of  God  is  not  like  a scientific  discovery,  which  once 


GOD  HEVEALED  IN  CHKIST. 


131 


made  and  published  is  independent  of  its  originator, 
and  would  be  in  no  way  affected  if  his  personality 
were  to  fade  into  darkness  or  oblivion.  For  Jesus 
Christ  did  not  satisfy  our  minds  with  arguments,  He 
did  not  solve  objections,  or  show  us  why  pain  and 
sacrifice  are  necessary  throughout  creation ; nay,  He 
did  not  even  declare  God’s  love  as  a dogma  and  prove 
it  by  miracles.  The  Gospel  lies  in  His  person.  He 
took  upon  Himself  all  that  tells  against  divine  love, 
all  that  has  ever  wrung  from  men’s  hearts  the  bitter 
words  of  unbelief,  or  the  more  chastened  cry  of  agoniz- 
ing inquiry,  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me  ? ” He  took  all  this  upon  Himself,  and  as  the  man 
of  sorrows,  made  it,  in  His  bitter  passion  and  death 
upon  the  cross,  the  very  occasion  for  expressing  the 
depth  of  the  divine  self-sacrifice.  Thus  the  satisfac- 
tion that  He  gives  us  lies  in  His  proving  to  us,  out 
of  the  very  heart  of  all  that  might  seem  to  speak 
against  such  a conclusion,  that  behind  all  the  groan- 
ing and  travailing  of  creation  lies  the  love  of  God, 
and  beyond  it  all  the  victory  of  God  ; and  the  demon- 
stration consists  in  the  fact  that  Jesus  as  essential 
Son  of  the  Father  reveals  no  other  love  than  God’s, 
and  by  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  manifests  that 
love  triumphant  through  all  seeming  failure.  If  He 
was  not  God,  He  manifested  no  more  than  any  other 
good  man,  namely,  that  there  is  such  a thing  as  good- 
ness and  self-sacrifice  to  be  set  against  the  selfish 
treachery  of  Judas,  and  malice  of  Caiaphas,  and 
weakness  of  Pilate,  and  indifference  of  the  Jews; 
and  if  He  did  not  rise  from  the  dead  we  have  lost 


132  THE  INCABHATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

altogether  the  thrilling  security  which  His  life  has 
afforded  to  the  weakest  of  the  faithful,  of  final  vic- 
tory. Certainly,  it  is  only  because  Jesus  is  God  that 
we  have  our  Gospel  for  the  world ; but  grant  that, 
and  love  is,  not  the  first  word,  but  the  last  word,  in 
God’s  disclosure  of  Himself ; love  is  God’s  motive ; 
love  forgets  no  single  individual ; love  goes  all  lengths 
of  sacrifice  ; love  in  the  universe  works  on  through 
all  failures  to  its  victorious  issue 

(3)  Thirdly,  we  look  again  at  the  love  of  God  as 
Christ  manifests  it,  and  we  notice  that  it  is  in  no 
isolation  from  those  other  qualities  of  God  — His 
justice.  His  truth  — which  belong,  we  may  say,  to 
His  earlier  revelation  of  Himself.  The  love  of  God 
is  no  mere  benevolence  which  simply  desires  to  make 
man  happy  anyhow,  in  any  condition.  God’s  love 
created  man  for  fellowship  with  Himself.  ‘‘  The 
glory  of  God,”  Irenseus  grandly  says,  is  the  living 
man ; the  life  of  man  is  the  vision  of  God.”  ^ Thus, 
as  God’s  love  created  man  for  fellowship  with  Him- 
self, so  His  love  goes  out  in  redemption  to  bring 
men  back,  by  boundless  self-sacrifice,  into  that  fellow-- 
ship,  when  it  had  been  lost.  “ God  was  in  Christ 
reconciling  the  world  unto  Himself.”  Unto  Himself : 
thus  love  goes  out  to  call  men  back ; it  goes  out  as  a 
summons,  a claim,  an  invitation,  to  something  high 
and  holy,  even  God’s  presence.  This  it  is  that  makes 
love  awful.  ‘‘The  sinners  in  Zion,”  cries  Isaiah, 
“ are  afraid ; trembling  hath  surprised  the  godless 
ones.  Who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  the  devouring 
1 See  app.  note  35.  2 gt.  iren.  c.  haer,  iv.  20. 7. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


133 


fire?  who  among  us  shall  dwell  with  everlasting 
burnings  ? ” ^ This  fire,  this  everlasting  burning  fire 
is  nothing  else  than  the  divine  holiness,  which  forces 
men  to  feel  they  could  not  breathe  in  that  fine  air, 
that  pure  severity  of  perfect  light.” 

Thus  it  is  that  Christ’s  love,  God’s  love,  contains 
in  itself,  as  it  goes  forth  to  redeem,  the  element  of 
severity,  of  judgment.  God  will  go  all  lengths  of 
self-sacrifice  to  supply  us  with  the  motives  and  means 
to  return  to  Him.  His  mercy  interposes  with  his  jus- 
tice, it  interposes  delays,  it  tries  all  expedients : ‘‘  let 
the  barren  fig  tree  alone  this  year  also,”  it  pleads, 
‘‘  till  I shall  dig  about  it,  and  dung  it ; and  if  it  bear 
fruit  thenceforth,  well  ” ; but  at  the  last  issue  jus- 
tice must  prevail,  ‘4f  not,  thou  shalt  cut  it  down.”^ 
Thus  mercy,  rejoicing  against  judgment,  must  prepare 
for  judgment  at  the  last;  because  in  God  there  is 
perfect  reality,  unalterable  truth.  We  can  trust 
Him  utterly  to  give  to  all  men  in  this  life,  or  beyond 
it,  a real-  chance  of  knowing  God  as  He  is,  and  of 
accepting  His  love.  Christ,  in  fact,  has  proved  that 
He  wills  all  men  to  be  saved  and  come  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth,  that  He  is  infinitely  considerate  of 
the  cases  and  circumstances  of  individuals;  but  on 
the  other  hand  Christ  has  proved,  and  we  must  take 
account  of  it,  that  ‘‘  mercy  and  truth  meet  together,” 
and  that  “ righteousness  turns  again  to  judgment  ” ; 
that  God  deals  in  justice  at  the  last  with  the  use  that 
each  soul  hast  made  of  its  opportunities. 

For  listen  to  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  He  speaks 

1 Is.  xxxiii.  14.  2 St,  Luke  xiii.  8,  9. 


134  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

plain  words  as  to  our  unfitness,  in  the  present  condi- 
tion of  our  nature,  for  His  spiritual  purposes.  He 
can  not  commit  Himself  to  any  man,  because  He 
knows  what  is  in  man;  He  demands  conversion; 
He  requires  a new  birth.  He  is  indeed  infinitely 
encouraging  to  all  who  will  make  a start  for  good, 
to  the  adulterous  woman,  to  the  penitent  thief : He 
is  infinitely  patient  with  slow  and  timorous  progress 
like  that  of  Nicodemus  or  of  his  own  Apostles : He 
is  royal-hearted  in  the  recognition  which  He  gives 
to  ignorant  goodness  like  that  of  the  heathen  who 
ministered  unknowingly  to  Him  in  the  least  of  His 
brethren,  or  that  of  the  man  who  was  casting  out 
devils  in  His  name,  but  followed  not  with  the  apos- 
tolic company ; but,  none  the  less,  He  is  terrible  in 
His  severity  to  those  who  are  obstinately  deaf  to  calls, 
who  are  stereotyped  in  a routine  of  respectability 
and  satisfied  with  themselves  as  they  are ; who  are 
outwardly  professors  of  religion,  but  selfish  and  cov- 
etous within.  ‘‘Woe  unto  you,”  he  cries,  “scribes  and 
Pharisees,  hypocrites,  . . . how  shall  ye  escape  the 
judgment  of  hell?”^  Yes,  He  who  sets  such  value 
on  human  life,  who  sacrificed  Himself  so  utterly  for 
it,  shrinks  not  a whit  from  announcing  the  inex- 
orable penalties  of  wilful  sin,  of  the  wilful  repudiation 
of  the  light;  “this  is  the  judgment,  that  the  light 
is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness 
rather  than  the  light;  for  their  works  were  evil.” 
Men  may  repudiate  an  external  message  and  be  com- 
paratively guiltless,  because  they  may  do  it  igno- 

1 St.  Matt,  xxiii.  29,  33. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


135 


rantly,  not  knowing  what  they  do  ; they  may  “ speak 
a word  against  the  Son  of  man  ” and  be  forgiven ; 
but  there  is  an  inner  visitant  to  the  heart  of  man, 
there  is  a witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost  within,  and 
there  is  a point  where  the  deliberate  repudiation  of 
this  inner  light  becomes  the  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  which  passes  the  limits  of  forgiveness ; 
there  is  a sin  which  shall  not  be  forgiven,  neither 
in  this  world,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come.”  Not 
surely  because  God  loses  the  willingness  to  forgive ; 
but  (must  it  not  be?)  because  sin  has  become  the 
ingrained  and  inextricable  habit  of  the  soul;  the 
man  is  ‘‘  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin.”  ^ 

III. 

We  touch  here  upon  a moral  law,  the  law  of  moral 
deterioration,  the  law  that  who  will  not,  at  last  can- 
not. It  is  part  of  that  larger  law,  in  accordance 
with  which  all  acts  of  will  form  habits,  and  habits 
stereotype  into  character,  and  character  becomes  in- 
delible; and  the  fact  of  its  recognition  by  Jesus 
Christ  leads  us  to  notice  another  element  in  His  rev- 
elation of  the  Father. 

He  is  constantly  calling  attention  to  certain  laws 
in  accordance  with  which  God  works  in  spiritual 
matters.  It  is  easy  to  give  examples : If  ye  forgive 
men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also 
forgive  you.  But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  tres- 
passes, neither  will  your  heavenly  Father  forgive  your 
1 St.  Matt.  xii.  32,  St.  Mark  iii.  29. 


136  THE  INCAEJTATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

trespasses.”  With  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye 
shall  be  judged : and  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it 
shall  be  measured  unto  you.”  ‘‘  Every  one  that  ask-  / 
eth  receiveth,  and  he  that  seeketh  findeth,  and  to  him 
that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened.”  Whosoever 
hath,  to  him  shall  be  given,  and  he  shall  have  abun- 
dance : but  whosoever  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be 
taken  away  even  that  which  he  hath.”  Except  a 
grain  of  wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die  it  abideth 
by  itself  alone ; but  if  it  die,  it  beareth  much  fruit.” 

‘‘  He  that  loveth  his  life  (or  soul)  loseth  it ; and  he 
that  hateth  his  life  (or  soul)  in  this  world  shall  keep 
it  unto  life  eternal.”  ^ These  are  divine  laws  which 
Christ  enunciates. 

Law  prevails,  we  learn,  as  much  in  the  spiritual  as 
in  the  physical  world.  This  is  nowhere  more  strik- 
ingly illustrated  than  in  our  Lord’s  teaching  about 
prayer.  Faith,  we  are  led  to  believe,  can  obtain  by 
prayer  the  accomplishment  of  its  desires,  but  it  is  the 
faith  which  is  in  union  with  Jesus,  that  is  to  say  in 
deliberate  harmony  with  the  mind  and  method  of  the 
Father.  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide  in 
you,  ask  whatsoever  ye  will,  and  it  shall  be  done 
unto  you.”  ^ 

Thus  the  very  sequence  of  petitions  in  the  Lord’s 
prayer  contradicts  as  forcibly  as  possible  the  crude 
notion  that  prayer  is  an  arbitrary  process,  by  which 
we  induce  God  to  do  what  we  happen  to  want,  and 
drag  His  action  down  to  the  level  of  our  short-sighted 

1 St.  Matt.  vi.  14,  15 ; vii.  2,  8 ; xiii.  12 ; St.  John  xii.  25. 

2 St.  John  XV.  7-10. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


13T 


desires.  The  very  sequence  of  the  petitions  forces 
us  first  to  exalt  God’s  glory  — His  name,  or  disclos- 
ure of  Himself  — above  man’s  need,  and  to  make  our 
first  prayer,  “ Hallowed  be  Thy  name  ” ; then  it  lifts 
us  to  the  contemplation  of  a divine  kingdom,  yet  to 
be  realized,  and  teaches  us  to  merge  our  petty  wants 
in  the  great  purpose  of  the  Father:  ‘‘Thy  kingdom 
come.”  Next  it  overshadows  us  with  the  sense  of  a 
divine  will,  the  execution  of  which  is  the  law  of  the 
unseen  world,  and  it  forces  us  to  find  in  submission 
to  this  our  true  liberty  and  power:  “Thy  will  be 
done  as  in  heaven,  so  on  earth.”  Only  at  this  point 
are  we  allowed  to  express  our  own  need ; and,  even 
so,  it  is  our  bare  need  and  not  our  extravagant 
wishes:  “give  us  to-day  our  bread  for  the  coming 
day.”  And  because  we  cannot  serve  God,  unless  we 
are  at  peace  with  Him,  therefore  we  pray  for  forgive- 
ness of  our  debts;  not  anyhow,  but  in  accordance 
with  the  law,  that  God  deals  with  us  as  we  deal  with 
our  fellow  men : “ forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  also 
have  forgiven  our  debtors.”  And  because  we  depend 
utterly  upon  the  divine  protection,  therefore  we  con- 
clude, “bring  us  not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us 
from  the  evil  one.”  Surely  the  mere  sequence  of 
these  petitions  makes  it  impossible  to  attribute  any 
arbitrary  power  to  prayer.  Its  power,  we  learn,  — 
the  power  of  our  sonship  — is  not  power  to  override 
God’s  law,  but  to  co-operate  with  it,  it  depends  on 
our  intelligent  co-operation  with  the  divine  method.^ 
It  was  the  enunciation  of  this  truth,  in  the  region 
1 See  app.  note  36. 


138  THE  INCABNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

of  natural  pliilosopliy,  which  has  made  men  think 
of  Lord  Bacon  as  the  prophet  of  modern  science. 
“Nature,”  he  said,  “can  only  be  controlled  by  being 
obeyed.”  But  the  principle  had  already  found  rich 
expression,  in  regard  to  the  whole  of  God’s  universe, 
in  the  spirit  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
truth  that  God  works  by  law  appears  not  only  in 
His  words,  but  in  all  the  circumstances  of  His  ap- 
pearance. 

Thus  His  manifestation  is  the  outcome  of  slow- 
working  forces,  “in  the  fulness  of  the  time.”  ^ As  mani- 
fested, He  is  a miraculous  person,  yet,  as  was  pointed 
out.  His  miracles  are  not  arbitrary  portents,  they  are 
the  proper  phenomena  of  His  supernatural  nature. 
They  themselves  exhibit  a law  — a law  of  corre- 
spondence with  faith ; “ according  to  their  faith  it  is 
done”  to  men,  and  “Jesus  could  do  no  mighty 
works,”  where  there  was  no  belief.  Moreover  the 
Christ  being  what  He  was,  was  introduced  into  the 
world  of  law  to  set  new  forces  at  work  in  it,  but  as 
part  of  the  old  system.  In  this  sense  too.  He  was 
“ born  under  the  law.”  That  is  to  say.  He  showed 
Himself  as  He  was,  and  then  let  circumstances  take 
their  course  with  him.  Thus  the  death  of  Christ  was 
not,  as  people  sometimes  seem  to  have  imagined, 
God’s  act,  it  was  man’s  act : it  was  the  crime  by 
which  the  sin  of  the  world  betrayed  its  true  charac- 
ter. Of  God  it  is  said  in  the  matter  that  He  spared 
not  His  only  Son.^  He  suffered  all  to  go  on,  accord- 
ing to  the  deep-working  order  of  the  world,  even  to 
1 Gal.  iv.  4,  Heb.  i.  1,  2.  2 See  app.  note  37. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


139 


His  death;  and  the  Son  co-operating  with  the  Father 
exempted  not  Himself,  evoked  no  miraculous  protec- 
tion, but  gave  Himself  as  the  Father  gave  Him.  Nor 
was  this  merely  the  hiding  of  God’s  power ; it  is  the 
method  of  His  power,  its  constant  method. 

Thus  what  is  true  of  Christ,  is  true  of  the  church 
which  is  to  represent  Him.  There  is  nothing  arbi- 
trary or  capricious  about  our  Lord’s  method  of  pre- 
paring for  the  church,  by  the  choice  and  training  of 
His  disciples ; everyvrhere  He  respects  the  limits 
which  moral  character  sets  to  spiritual  influence ; 
slowly,  deliberately,  the  moral  materials  are  collected, 
and  adapted,  for  the  spiritual  fabric.  Again  all  the 
anticipations  which  our  Lord  raised  in  the  minds  of 
His  disciples  as  to  the  future  method  of  the  kingdom, 
are  in  accordance  with  this  respect  for  law,  and  corre- 
spond with  what  has  actually  occurred  since  he  left 
the  world.  The  church  has  been  at  work  with  a 
supernatural  presence  to  rely  upon,  but  bound  up 
with  natural  processes  of  the  world’s  order,  as  leaven, 
or  salt,  or  seed  operates  in  physical  nature. 

The  same  principle  had  already  appeared  in  the 
church  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  a whole  it  pre- 
sents a striking  example  of  gradual  operation,  accord- 
ing to  a law  that  can  be  traced.  When  Gnosticism, 
emphasizing  the  imperfections  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  contrast  which  it  presents  to  the  New, 
declared  the  Old  Testament  the  work  of  another  and 
a hostile  God,  the  Christian  Church,  with  a splendidly 
true  instinct,  insisted  upon  the  right  conception  of 
God’s  gradual  method.  In  the  old  covenant,  they 


140  THE  INCAEHATION  OP  THE  SON  OP  GOD. 

said,  things  ‘‘  had  their  origin  and  beginning,  with  us 
their  extension  and  completion.”  ^ 

Such  is  the  tranquil  operation  ” of  God  in  spirit- 
ual matters,  and  it  is  akin  to  the  physical  develop- 
ment. Thus  Augustine,  with  other  ancient  teachers, 
anticipates  modern  views  by  suggesting  that  nature, 
as  we  now  see  it,  represents  a gradual  evolution  from 
^original  germs.^  Of  course  recent  knowledge  of 
natural  processes  has  greatly  emphasized  this  concep- 
tion; slowly,  we  know,  in  the  struggle  for  existence, 
by  tentative  advances,  through  painfully-secured  re- 
sults, has  the  end  been  realized,  and  the  devel- 
oped product  attained.  There  is  harmony  here, 
wonderful  harmony,  between  the  spiritual  and  phys- 
ical methods  of  God ; and  the  result  of  all  we  know 
of  God’s  working  in  nature  and  in  Christ  is  thus  to 
modify  some  popular  notions  of  the  divine  omnipo- 
rtence.  In  accurate  theology  God  has  been  generally 
:regarded  as  inherent  in  nature  as  well  as  transcend- 
ing it ; as  working  out  a divine  purpose  in  the  whole 
ordered  system.  The  system,  the  laws,  are  regarded 
as,  in  a certain  sense,  limiting  Him,  only  because 
they  express  His  mind.  God  is  limited  by  no  force 
external  to  Himself,  but  by  His  own  being ; and  the 
laws  of  nature  are,  therefore,  limits  in  His  working, 
only  so  far  as  they  express  something  of  that  law  of 
perfect  reason,  that  fundamental  law,  ‘‘against  which,” 
says  St.  Augustine,  “ God  can  no  more  work  than  He 
ean  work  against  Himself.”  ^ 

This  conception  of  a self-limited  God,  a God  whose 
1 See  app.  note  38.  2 cf,  app.  note  39.  ^ See  app.  note  40. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


141 


very  being  is  law,  has  never  vanished  from  the  best 
theology,  but  it  has  been  seriously  obscured  in  much 
theology,  and  in  popular  conception.  In  part  this 
has  been  due  to  the  spirit  of  western  imperialism, 
which  led  men  to  conceive  of  God  externally,  as  the 
great  unfettered  monarch  of  all  worlds.  In  part  to 
Calvinism  with  its  doctrine  of  arbitrary  and  irrational 
decrees.^  In  part  again  it  has  been  due  to  Lutheran- 
ism, with  its  theory  of  an  unreal  imputation  of  sin 
and  of  merit : a theory  which  represents  God’s  action 
as  lawless  and  unaccountable.  In  part,  as  the  inher- 
itor of  these  earlier  systems,  to  English  eighteenth 
century  theology,  with  its  thought  of  a remote  God, 
whose  presence  is  seen  in  occasional  interventions  in 
the  order  of  nature.  More  than  to  all  specified  sys- 
tems, it  has  been  due  to  the  tendency  always  present 
in  the  vulgar  imagination,  to  see  the  Divine  rather 
in  what  is  portentous  and  unaccountable  than  in  what 
is  orderly  and  tranquil;  to  think  of  power,  not  as 
what  works  through  law,  but  as  what  triumphs  over 
it.  Thus  it  is  that  God’s  omnipotence  has  been  un- 
derstood to  mean,  not  His  universal  power  in  and 
over  all  things  which  works  patiently  and  unerringly 
in  the  slow-moving  process  to  the  far-off  event,  but 
rather  the  unfettered  despot’s  freedom  to  do  anything 
anyhow.  Thus  it  has  not  been  without  excuse  supplied 
by  Christians,  that  Mr.  Cotter  Morison  has  represented 
the  grace,  which  Christianity  proclaims,  as  an  arbitrary 
or  even  demoralizing  action  of  divine  benevolence.^ 

1 See  app.  note  41. 

2 See  Mr.  C.  Morison  Service  of  Man  (Kegan  Paul,  1887) , pp.  92  ff. 


142  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

But  certainly  such  a representation  is  without  ex- 
cuse in  the  best  theology.  The  action  of  Jesus 
Christ  before  His  ascension,  and  after  it  to  the  pres- 
ent moment,  is  action  by  law  and  method^  action 
which  is  in  direct  continuity  with  the  system  of  natu- 
ral laws,  physical  and  moral.  Certainly  we  cannot 
contemplate  God  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  with- 
out apprehending  that  the  divine  power  works,  and 
must  work,  by  law. 

IV. 

It  is  impossible  for  any  person  to  disclose  his  mind 
and  will  towards  others,  without  at  the  same  time 
letting  them  see  something  of  his  inner  self.  Thus 
it  was,  as  we  may  say,  in  the  process  of  revealing 
God’s  mind  externally  towards  man,  that  our  Lord 
gave  us  also  that  insight  into  His  inner  being  which 
is  expressed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

It  is  important  to  notice  that  there  is  no  moment 
when  Jesus  Christ  expressly  reveals  this  doctrine. 
It  was  overheard,  rather  than  heard.  It  was  simply, 
that  in  the  gradual  process  of  intercourse  with  Him, 
His  disciples  came  to  recognize  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost  as  included  in  their  deepening  and  en- 
larging thought  of  God.  Christ  was  often  speaking 
of  His  relation  as  Son  to  the  Father,  nor  did  He  ever 
allow  His  disciples  to  confuse  their  Sonship  with 
His : He  spoke  of  my  Father  ” and  of  your 
Father,”  never  — except  when  dictating  to  them  the 
words  of  their  prayer  — of  our  Father.”  His  Son- 
ship  belonged  to  that  transcendental  being  of  His, 


GOD  KEVEALED  IN  CHRIST.  14^ 

which  in  spite  of  all  the  close  human  fellowship 
which  they  enjoyed  with  Him,  the  disciples  could 
not  fail  to  recognize  and  to  acknowledge.  In  the 
higher  world  He  stood  in  the  intimate  relationship 
of  a son,  an  only  son,  to  a father.  Moreover  He 
spoke  not  only  of  the  Father,  but  also  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  in  a sense  greater  than  Himself  upon  earth, 
and  as  a person  who,  like  Himself,  could  be  blas- 
phemed; plainly  as  in  the  fullest  sense  divine.  In 
His  last  discourse,  it  appeared  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  to  take  His  own  place  when  He  had  gone.  He 
was  to  be  His  vicar  and  substitute  in  the  hearts  of 
the  Apostles,  and  in  the  church.  It  appeared  also, 
that  though  He  was  to  be  the  divine  person  with 
whom  the  disciples  were  to  be  in  most  immediate 
contact,  yet  He  was  third,  not  second,  among  the 
sacred  Three,  proceeding  from,  and  sent  from,  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  Moreover  it  became  plain  that 
these  divine  Three  were  not  distinct  individuals,  who 
could  act  separately  or  apart ; there  appeared  an  in- 
separable unity  and  ‘‘  co-inherence  ” among  Them. 
Thus  the  coming  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  merely 
to  supply  the  absence  of  the  Son,  but  to  complete 
His  presence.  In  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  the  Son 
too  was  to  come ; in  the  coming  of  the  Son,  also  the 
Father.  ^‘He  will  come  unto  you,”  “I  will  come 
unto  you,”  ‘^We  will  come  unto  you,”  are  inter- 
changeable phrases.^  The  process  is  not  easy  to 
describe,  but  it  came  about  that  the  Apostles  learned 
to  think  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  as  included 


1 St.  John  xiv.  16-23, 


144  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

in  the  being  of  God,  and  that  without  wavering  for 
a moment  in  their  sense  of  the  divine  unity.  The 
name  of  the  one  God,  as  our  Lord  finally  named  it 
in  the  formula  of  baptism,  is  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  Apostles  seem  to  have 
experienced  no  intellectual  difficulty  in  regard  to 
this  Trinity  in  the  Godhead.  I suppose  this  is  to 
be  accounted  for,  by  the  fact  that  difficulties  in  logic 
do  not  trouble  us  at  all  where  facts  of  experience  are 
in  question.  Thus  we  are  often  ludicrously  at  fault 
in  attempting  to  give  a logical  account  of  quite 
familiar  experiences,  for  example,  of  the  inner  rela- 
tions of  those  three  strangely  independent  elements 
of  our  own  spiritual  being,  will  and  reason  and  feel- 
ing,^ or  of  the  relation  of  mind  and  body.  But  our 
inability  to  explain  facts  logically  goes  no  way  at  all 
to  alter  our  sense  of  their  reality.  Now  the  Apostles 
lived  in  a vivid  sense  of  experienced  intercourse,  first 
with  the  Son,  then  with  the  Father  through  the  Son^ 
later  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  the  Father  and 
the  Son  through  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  vivid  expe- 
rience, outward  and  inward,  made  logical  formulas 
unnecessary.  When  the  formula  of  the  Trinity  — 
three  Persons  in  one  Substance  — was  developed  in 
the  church  later  on,  through  the  cross-questioning 
of  heresies,  it  was  with  many  apologies  for  the  inade- 
quacy of  human  language,  and  with  a deep  sense  of 
the  inscrutableness  of  God.  The  formula  was  simply 
intended  to  express  and  guard  the  realities  disclosed 

1 See  app.  note  42. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


145 


in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  great  stress  was 
laid  on  the  divine  unity.  The  three  Persons  are  not 
separable  individuals,  so  that  it  could  be  argued  that 
what  one  of  the  sacred  three  does,  another  does  not 
do,  as  we  commonly  argue  about  persons  amongst 
ourselves,  regarding  each  person  as  separate  and 
exclusive  of  others.  God  in  three  is  inseparably  one. 
Thus  if  He  creates,  it  is  the  Father  through  the  Son 
by  the  Holy  Ghost ; if  He  redeems,  it  is  the  Father 
who  is  the  fount  of  redemption  through  the  Son,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost ; if  the  Spirit  comes.  He  brings  with 
Him  in  His  coming  the  Son  and  the  Father,  for  in 
eternal  subordination  and  order,  the  three  are  one 
inseparable  God. 

I suppose  we  should  almost  all  of  us  admit  that 
whatever  we  can  know  certainly  of  the  being  of  God 
must  be  known  by  God’s  disclosure  of  Himself.  We 
cannot  by  searching  find  out  God.  On  the  other 
hand  if  man  is  made  in  God’s  image,  if  man’s  reason 
represents  the  divine  reason,  we  must  expect  that 
even  mysteries  will  be  rational.  Thus  St.  Thomas^ 
declares  that  we  cannot  d priori  prove  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  but  that  it  is  rational,  in  the  sense 
that  once  posited,  it  is  found  to  be  in  conformity 
with  reason.^  The  right  claim  for  reason,  in  respect 
to  mysteries,  seems  to  me  admirably  expressed  in 
the  following  proposition  of  Hermann  Lotze: 
reason,”  he  says,  is  not  of  itself  capable  of  finding 
the  highest  truth,  but  on  the  contrary  stands  in  need 
of  a revelation,  still,  reason  must  be  able  to  under- 
1 St.  Thom.  Aq.  Summa  Theol.  p.  I.  Qu.  32.  ad  2**’“. 


146  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

stand  the  revealed  truth,  at  least  so  far  as  to  recog* 
nize  in  it  the  satisfying  and  convincing  conclusion 
of  those  upward-soaring  trains  of  thought  which 
reason  itself  began,  led  by  its  own  needs,  but  was 
not  able  to  bring  to  an  end.”  ^ 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  then  is,  I assert,  not 
discoverable  by  reason,  but  agreeable  to  reason.  It 
corresponds  to  upward-soaring  trains  of  thought 
which  reason  itself  originates,  but  is  not  able  to  bring 
to  a conclusion.  For  the  reasons  which  lead  us  to 
believe  in  God  at  all,  lead  us  to  think  of  Him  as  an 
eternal  and  spiritual  being.  Now  the  life  of  Spirit, 
the  highest  life  we  know,  is  made  up  of  the  action  of 
will  and  reason  and  love.  In  God  then,  we  imagine, 
is  a perfect  and  eternal  life,  of  will  and  reason  and 
love.  But  must  not  this  be  a life  of  relationships  ? 
Most  surely  love  is  only  conceivable  as  a personal 
relationship  of  a lover  and  a loved.  If  God  is  eter- 
nal love,  there  must  be  an  eternal  object  for  His 
love.  Again,  the  life  of  reason  is  a relationship  of 
the  subject  which  thinks  to  the  object  thought,  and 
an  eternally  perfect  mind  postulates  an  eternal  object 
for  its  contemplation.  Once  more  the  life  of  will 
means  the  passage  of  will  into  effect : there  is  no  sat- 
isfaction to  will  except  in  production ; an  eternally 
living  and  satisfied  will  postulates  an  eternally  ade- 
quate product.  Thus  it  is  that  our  upward-soaring 
trains  of  thought  lead  us  to  postulate  over  against 
God  in  His  eternal  being,  also  an  eternal  expression 
of  that  being,  which  shall  be  both  an  object  to  His 
1 Microcosmus  (Eng.  trans.)  ii.  p.  660. 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


147 


thought  and  a satisfaction  to  His  will  and  a repose 
to  His  love,  and  this  is  St.  John’s  doctrine  of  the 
Logos,  the  eternal  expression  of  God’s  being  in  fellow- 
ship with  Himself:  ‘‘The  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God.” 

The  d priori  considerations  which  suggest  trinity, 
as  distinct  from  duality,  in  God,  are  apt  to  appear 
fanciful  and  unreal  at  first  sight;  more  so  perhaps 
than  on  further  consideration  they  prove  themselves 
to  be.  But  it  is  enough,  surely,  if  we  can  be  ration- 
ally satisfied  that  God  cannot  be  a monotonous  unity, 
that  the  one  life  of  God  must  contain  within  itself 
distinctions  of  a personal  sort.  If  this  is  the  verdict 
of  reason,  we,  knowing  how  little  way  reason  can  go 
in  d priori  anticipations,  should  be  justly  called 
rationalistic  if  we  refuse  to  accept,  as  in  fact  dis- 
closed in  Christ,  God’s  triune  being.^ 

Thus  the  Christian,  taught  of  Christ,  lifts  up  his 
mind  in  reverent  awe,  and  yet  in  confidence,  to  catch 
some  glimpse  of  the  eternal  Being.  Back  then, 
behind  all  the  forms  of  life,  all  the  laws  and  subordi- 
nations of  parts  and  manifold  relationships  and  pro- 
cesses, physical  and  spiritual,  which  characterize  this 
complex  universe,  his  mind  penetrates  to  an  eternal 
Being  in  whom  lies  the  explanation  of  all  this  created 
world,  an  eternal  productiveness,  an  eternal  law,  an 
eternal  subordination,  an  eternal  process,  an  eternal 
relationship  of  will  and  thought  and  love.  He 
beholds  by  faith  God,  self-contained,  self-complete,  as 
the  Father  moves  for  ever  forth  in  the  begetting  of 
1 See  app.  note  43. 


148  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

the  Son,  and  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  procession 
of  the  Spirit.  There  lies  an  eternal  fellowship,  in 
which  the  Father  finds  in  the  Son,  His  adequate 
word  or  utterance,  the  satisfying  expression  of  His 
being,  and  object  of  His  thought  and  will  and  love ; 
in  which  the  Son  eternally  receives  and  communicates 
the  fulness  of  the  divine  life ; in  which  the  Spirit,  the 
life  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  the  product  and  joy 
of  both,  and  the  bond  of  communion  of  the  one  with 
the  other. 

That  this  high  doctrine  is  in  fact  rational  is  made 
perhaps  most  evident  by  carrying  the  war  into  the 
enemy’s  country.  Let  me  then  briefly  endeavour  to 
substantiate  the  position  that  this  Christian  doctrine 
of  God  alone  makes  permanently  possible  a rational 
theism,  by  holding  together  the  extremes  of  panthe- 
ism and  deism  at  a middle  point  of  balance. 

Pantheism  gives  noble  expression  to  the  truth  of 
God’s  presence  in  all  things,  but  it  cannot  satisfy  the 
religious  consciousness : it  cannot  give  it  escape  from 
the  limitations  of  the  world,  or  guarantee  personal 
immortality,  or  (what  is  most  important)  give  any 
adequate  interpretation  to  sin,  or  supply  any  ade- 
quate remedy  for  it.  On  the  other  hand  Unitarian 
deism,  with  its  eternal  uni-personal  God,  distinct 
from  the  world,  is  involved  in  insuperable  difficulties. 
How  can  any  conception  be  formed  of  a God,  really 
alive,  with  a life  of  will  and  reason  and  love,  yet  in 
blank  monotonous  solitude,  without  product  or  object 
or  response  ? The  difficulty  is  so  great,  that  it  would 
seem  as  if  unitarianism  must  almost  inevitably  tend 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


14& 


to  pass  either  into  pantheism,  which  makes  the  world 
as  necessary  to  God  as  God  is  to  the  world;  or 
as  with  Coleridge,  and  Maurice,  and  Hutton,  into 
Christian  theology.^ 

For  Christian  theology  is  the  harmony  of  pantheism 
and  deism.  On  the  one  hand,  Christianity  believes 
all  that  the  Pantheist  believes  of  God’s  presence  in 
all  things.  “ In  him  ” we  believe  we  live  and  move 
and  are  ” : ‘‘  in  him  all  things  have  their  coherence.”  ^ 
All  the  beauty  of  the  world,  all  its  truth,  all  its  good- 
ness, are  but  so  many  modes  under  which  God  is 
manifested,  of  whose  glory  nature  is  the  veil,  of 
whose  word  it  is  the  expression,  whose  law  and  reason 
it  embodies.  But  God  is  not  exhausted  in  the  world, 
nor  dependent  upon  it;  He  exists  eternally  in  His 
triune  being,  self-sufficing,  self-subsistent.  His  Spirit 
is  moving  in  the  world  and  His  Word  is  sustaining 
and  governing  it,  but  before  creation  and  beyond  it, 
the  Spirit  and  the  Word  dwelt  in  the  bosom  of  God. 
God  is  not  only  in  nature  as  its  life,  but  He  tran- 
scends it  as  its  Creator,  its  Lord,  — in  its  moral 
aspect  — its  Judge.  So  it  is  that  Christianity  enjoys 
the  riches  of  pantheism  without  its  inherent  weakness 
on  the  moral  side,  without  making  God  dependent  on 
the  world,  as  the  world  is  on  God.  On  the  other 
hand,  Christianity  converts  an  unintelligible  deism 
into  a rational  theism.  It  can  explain  how  God 
became  a Creator  in  time,  because  it  knows  how 
creation  had  its  eternal  analogue  in  the  uncreated 
nature ; it  was  God’s  nature  eternally  to  produce,  to 
1 See  app.  note  M.  2 Acts  xvii.  28  j Col.  i.  17. 


150  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

communicate  itself,  to  live.  It  can  explain  how  God 
can  be  eternally  alive  and  yet  in  complete  independ- 
ence of  the  world  which  He  created,  because  God’s 
unique  eternal  being  is  no  solitary  and  monotonous 
existence ; it  includes  in  itself  the  fulness  of  fellow- 
ship, the  society  of  Father  and  Son  and  Spirit. 


V. 

It  is  a splendid  heritage,  a magnificent  possession, 
that  of  faith  in  God,  as  it  is  bestowed  upon  the 
Christian.  To  believe  in  God  is  to  move  about  the 
world  — increasingly  as  we  realize  God’s  presence 
better  — in  the  spirit  of  a worshipper.  For  the  spirit 
of  worship  is  derived  from  the  recognition  of  God 
in  all  things  and  all  things  in  God.  God  is  in  all 
things.  There  is  no  creature  so  small,  but  represents 
something  of  His  goodness.  He  is  disclosed  in  all 
the  grades  and  kinds  of  life : under  the  divers  modes 
of  beauty,  and  truth,  and  goodness,  each  with  its  own 
intrinsic  value : through  the  ministries  of  artist  and 
thinker,  labourer,  craftsman,  statesman,  reformer, 
priest.  He  is  living  in  the  life  of  nature  and  of  man. 
One  and  unchanged  He  is  revealed  in  all  varieties  of 
loveliness,  all  fragments  and  elements  of  knowledge, 
all  traits  of  worthy  character.  Thus  the  Christian 
touches  all  things  with  a loving  reverence,  for  within 
them  God  is  hidden.  And  because  wherever  He  is. 
He  is  to  be  adored,  therefore  to  the  believer  in  God 
all  joy  in  what  is  beautiful,  all  satisfaction  in  ascer- 
tained truth,  as  all  delight  in  human  fellowship,  is 


GOD  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


151 


for  ever  passing  back  into  worship  of  Him,  whose 
essence  it  is  that  touches  with  glory  all  desirable 
things,  that  is,  in  their  fundamental  nature  and  true 
application,  all  things  that  are.  “ Holy,  holy,  holy, 
is  the  Lord  of  hosts : the  whole  earth  is  full  of  His 
glory.”  1 

Worship,  I say,  is  the  recognition  of  God  in  all 
things,  and  also  all  things  in  God.  For  no  created 
thing  adds  to  His  essential  good.  All  things  that 
are,  do  but  represent  in  a lower  form  what  exists 
eternally  in  God.  ‘‘  By  faith  we  understand  that  the 
worlds  have  been  framed  by  the  word  of  God,  so 
that  what  is  seen  hath  not  been  made  out  of  things 
that  do  appear.”  2 Not  out  of  things  that  do  appear 
have  the  worlds  been  framed,  but  they  do  represent 
unapparent  and  eternal  realities,  for  the  whole  uni- 
verse is  the  expression  in  gradual  evolution  of  what 
existed  beyond  time  in  the  divine  mind.  What  has 
come  into  being,”  says  St.  John,  ‘‘was  life  in  Him.”^ 
So  that  if  all  created  things  should  pass  into  the 
nothingness  out  of  which  they  sprang,  there  would 
be  no  loss  of  essential  good.  They  but  express  im- 
perfectly a perfect  archetype.  To  see  all  things  in 
God,  then,  is  the  crown  of  worship.  We  shall  be- 
hold through  eternal  ages  more  and  more  of  God, 
not  only  in  His  perfected  creatures,  but  in  Himself. 
In  endless  progress  of  felicity  without  weariness  we 
shall  see  further  and  further,  on  and  up,  into  the 
depths  of  beauty  and  holiness  and  truth  in  Jesus, 
incarnate  and  glorified,  and  in  the  triune  God ; and 
1 Is.  vi.  3.  2 Heb.  xi.  3,  s St.  John  i.  3.  See  R.  V.  marg. 


152  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

as  we  see  God  we  shall  adore,  not  for  the  sake  of 
anything  we  get  from  Him,  but  for  the  sake  of  His 
own  supreme  worthiness.  ‘‘We  praise  Thee,  we 
bless  Thee,  we  worship  Thee,  we  glorify  Thee,  we 
give  thanks  to  Thee  for  Thy  great  glory.”  Blessed 
indeed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  they  shall  see  God. 

The  Christian  then,  as  believing  in  God,  finds  this 
earth  a temple  for  adoration,  and  looks  forward  to 
entering  the  inner  shrine.  He  sees  God  in  all  things 
and  all  things  in  God.  And  because  in  one-half  of 
his  nature,  he  is  thus  beholding  God,  so  in  that  part 
of  his  nature  which  he  turns  towards  men,  and  in 
view  of  the  world’s  vicissitudes  he  is  as  one  who  “ is 
not  afraid  of  any  evil  tidings,  for  his  heart  standeth 
fast  and  believeth  in  the  Lord.”  Men  in  their  wilful- 
ness, though  never  in  mere  ignorance,  may  destroy 
themselves : they  may  make  it  impossible  that  they 
should  individually  attain  the  end  for  which  God 
created  them ; but  they  cannot  destroy  God’s  work. 
The  world  about  us  with  its  lawlessness,  its  disunions, 
its  jarrings,  seems  sometimes  as  if  it  could  attain  to  no 
great  end ; like  a restless  sea  of  many  waters,  aim- 
less, barren,  unprogressive.  But  there  is  purpose  in 
it.  The  tossing  sea  we  shall  behold  one  day  shot  with 
the  fires  of  the  divine  judgment,  as  St.  John  beheld 
it,  “ a sea  of  glass  mingled  with  fire  ” ; and  beyond 
the  judgment  again,  as  the  sea  of  glass  clear  as  crys- 
tal which  mirrors  in  its  calm  surface,  the  throne  of 
God  before  which  it  is  spread.  “For  though  the 
waves  toss  themselves  they  shall  not  prevail.”  All 


GOD  BEVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


153 


things  move  on  to  the  divine  event.  The  nations  of 
the  earth  shall  walk  in  the  light  of  the  holy  city,  and 
the  kings  of  the  earth  shall  bring  their  glory  and 
honour  into  it.  All  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  and 
under  the  earth,  shall  bow  and  adore  Jesus,  the  heir 
of  the  whole  world’s  movement  and  fruitfulness. 

Thus  the  goal  of  all  things  is  unity,  subordination, 
worship. 

“ The  four  living  creatures,”  who  with  their  wings 
and  eyes  symbolize  the  manifold  forces  and  vital 
powers  of  nature,  rest  not  day  and  night,  saying 
Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  God,  the  Almighty, 
which  was  and  which  is,  and  which  is  coming.  And 
when  the  living  creatures  shall  give  glory  and  honour 
and  thanks  to  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  that 
liveth  for  ever  and  ever  : the  four  and  twenty  elders 

— that  is,  the  representatives  of  redeemed  humanity 

— shall  fall  down  before  him  that  sitteth  on  the 
throne,  and  shall  worship  him  that  liveth  for  ever 
and  ever,  , and  shall  cast  their  crowns  before  the 
throne,  saying^  Worthy  art  thou,  our  Lord  and  our 
God,  to  receive  the  glory  and  the  honour  and  the 
power,  for  thou  didst  create  all  things,  and  because 
of  thy  will,  they  were  and  were  created.”  ^ 

1 Rev.  XV.  2 ; iv.  6 ; xxi,  24 ; iv.  8-11. 


/ 


LECTURE  VI. 

MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 

Wherefore  it  behoved  him  in  all  things  to  he  made  like  unto  his 
brethren.  . . . For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted., 
he  is  able  to  succour  them  that  are  tempted.  — Hebrews  ii.  17, 10. 

Jesus  Christ  is  not  only  the  revelation  of  God- 
head, He  is  also  the  revelation  of  manhood.  ‘‘  As 
He  shows  God  to  man,’’  says  IrensBus,  so  He  exhib- 
its man  to  God.”  ^ He  exhibits  man  to  God,  and  to 
himself.  For  over  against  all  false  and  meagre  ideals 
of  man’s  capacity  and  destiny.  He  represents  the 
great  reality ; He  is  the  Son  of  man. 

I. 

The  dogmatic  safeguards  of  this  revelation  of  man- 
hood in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  the  church  has 
abundantly  provided  on  three  distinct  occasions.  First 
when  she  condemned,  in  Apollinarius,  all  attempts  to 
curtail  our  Lord’s  complete  humanity,  or  to  secure 
His  sinlessness  by  denying  to  Him  the  reality  of  hu- 
man spirit.  Secondly,  when  she  condemned  in  Euty- 
ches  the  false  reverence  which  would  merge  His 
humanity  in  His  Godhead,  and  affirmed  that  He  is 
“ of  one  substance  ” with  us  in  His  manhood  as  with 


154 


1 Sren.  c.  haer,  iv.  20. 7. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


155 


God  in  His  Godhead.  Lastly  when,  against  the 
Monothelites  of  the  seventh  century,  she  repudiated 
renewed  attempts  to  deny  in  Christ  the  real  action 
of  human  faculties,  and  asserted  as  certain  truth  that 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  found  unim- 
paired the  distinctive  action  of  human  will,  the  dis- 
tinct operation  of  the  properly  human  energies. 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  then,  is  truly  and  com- 
pletely man,  and  He  acts  as  man  through  the  exer- 
cise of  distinctive  human  faculties : this  is  the  church’s 
dogma.  Nothing  perhaps  shows  more  plainly  the  hand 
of  God  in  these  ecclesiastical  decisions  than  the  fact 
that  they  were  framed  with  such  emphasis  on  the 
human  nature  of  Jesus,  in  an  age  when  the  tendency 
of  catholic  thought  was  certainly  not  humanitarian. 

But  though  anti-humanitarian  tendencies  were  not 
allowed  to  impair  the  formal  doctrine  of  the  church, 
they  have  more  or  less  dimmed  the  apprehension  of 
its  meaning  at  more  than  one  epoch.  In  part  this 
has  come  about,  because  the  exigencies  of  theological 
controversy  in  the  period  of  the  later  ecumenical 
councils  overclouded,  not  in  the  best  minds,  but  in 
many  of  the  most  active  and  representative  minds, 
that  vivid  realization  of  Christianity  as  a way  of  life 
for  man  — — and  of  Christ  as  ‘‘the  liv- 

ing law  of  righteousness,”  ^ which  characterized  early 
times.  In  part,  because  mediaeval  theology  viewed 
the  Incarnation  metaphysically  rather  than  ethically, 
and  treated  it  by  the  aid  of  syllogisms  rather  than  of 
a genuine  study  of  the  Gospel  records.  In  part  be- 

1 Acts  ix.  2 ; xxii.  4.  2 Lactantius,  Bivin,  Instit  iv.  25 ; c£.  iv.  17. 


156  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


cause  with  the  Reformation,  when  controversial  inter- 
est reappeared  in  absorbing  power,  discussions  about 
justification,  predestination,  and  the  atonement  were 
allowed  a disproportionate  share  of  attention.  The 
late  Dean  of  St.  Paul’s  describes  thus  the  theological 
tendencies  in  this  country  at  the  period  immediately 
previous  to  the  Oxford  movement.  ^^Evangelical 
theology  had  dwelt  upon  the  work  of  Christ  and  laid 
comparatively  little  stress  on  His  example,  or  the 
picture  left  us  of  His  personality  and  life.  People 
who  can  recall  the  popular  teaching  which  was  spoken 
of  then  as  ‘ sound  ’ and  ^ faithful  ’ and  ‘ preaching 
Christ,’  can  remember  how  the  Epistles  were  ran- 
sacked for  texts  to  prove  the  sufficiency  of  scripture 
or  the  right  of  private  judgment,  or  the  distinction 
between  justification  and  sanctification,  while  the  Gos- 
pel narrative  was  imperfectly  studied  and  was  felt  to 
be  much  less  interesting.”  ^ 

In  different  ways  then  it  has  come  about  that  the 
reality  of  our  Lord’s  human  example,  and  therefore 
the  true  meaning  of  His  manhood,  have  not  been  so 
much  in  view  in  the  Christian  Church  as,  to  judge 
from  the  New  Testament,  they  should  have  been,  in 
their  bearing  on  the  life  of  individuals  and  of  society. 
We  need  again  and  again  to  go  back  to  the  considera- 
tion of  the  historical  Jesus.  The  dogmatic  decisions 
of  the  Church  Catholic  afford  us  guidance  and  warning 
in  the  undertaking : they  are  notice-boards  to  warn  us 
off  false  lines  of  approach  to  Him,  but  they  are  not, 
as  has  already  been  explained,  meant  to  be  anything 
1 Church,  The  Oxford  Movement  (Macmillan,  1891) , pp.  167-8. 


MAN  KEVEALED  IN  CHEIST. 


157 


more.  To  fill  up  the  dogmatic  outline  into  a living 
whole,  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  Incarnation,  and 
the  conditions  of  the  humanity  of  the  Son  of  God, 
we  must  go  back  to  scrutinize  the  figure  in  the 
Gospels. 

II. 

The  conditions  of  our  Lord’s  early  childhood  are 
veiled  from  us.  Nothing  is  told  us  about  His  educa- 
tion, nor  are  we  given  any  glimpse  of  Him  at  the 
period  when  men  learn  most  from  those  outside  them, 
but  He  grew  so  truly  as  a human  child  that  Joseph 
and  His  mother  had  not  been  led  to  expect  from 
Him  conduct  incompatible  with  childhood,  when  they 
took  Him  up  with  them  to  the  temple  in  His  thir- 
teenth year.  This  must  mean  that  He  was  taught  as 
the  young  are  taught ; and  in  the  temple  courts  He 
impressed  the  doctors  as  a child  of  marvellous  in- 
sight and  intelligence.  Not  but  what,  even  then, 
there  was  present  to  Him  the  consciousness  of  His 
unique  Sonship.  “ Wist  ye  not,”  He  said  to  His 
parents,  ‘Hhat  I must  be  about  my  Father’s  busi- 
ness ? ” ^ but  that  consciousness  of  divine  Sonship 
did  not  interfere  with  His  properly  human  growth. 

The  child  grew  and  waxed  strong,”  says  St.  Luke, 
‘‘becoming  full  of  wisdom,  and  the  favour  of  God 
was  upon  him.”  Again,  “Jesus  advanced  in  wisdom 
and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  men;”^  — 
the  phrase  being  borrowed  from  the  record  of  Samuel’s 
childhood,  with  the  specifications  added,  “ in  wisdom 
1 St.  Luke  ii.  49.  2 gt,  Luke  ii.  40,  52 ; cf.  1 Sam.  ii.  26. 


158  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

and  stature.”  There  was  a real  growth  in  mental 
apprehension  and  spiritual  capacity,  as  in  bodily 
stature. 

The  divine  Sonship  is  impressively  asserted  at  the 
baptism  in  the  river  Jordan.  Again,  Jesus  Christ 
manifests  His  consciousness  of  it  in  His  relation  to 
John  the  Baptist;  and  henceforth  throughout  our 
Lord’s  ministerial  life,  it  is  not  possible  for  one  who 
accepts,  even  generally,  the  historical  character  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  of  St.  John’s,  to  doubt  that 
He  knew  His  eternal  pre-existence  and  Sonship : but 
the  consciousness  is  not  allowed  to  interfere  with  the 
really  human  development  of  life.  He  receives  as 
man  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; He  was  led  as 
man  ‘‘of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness,”  and  hun- 
gered, and  was  subjected  as  man  to  real  temptations 
of  Satan,  such  as  made  their  appeal  to  properly  human 
faculties,  and  were  met  by  the  free  employment  of 
human  will.  He  was  “ in  all  points  tempted  like  as 
we  are,  apart  from  sin.”^  When  He  goes  out  to 
exercise  His  ministry.  He  bases  His  authority  on  the 
unction  of  the  Spirit  according  to  Isaiah’s  prophecy. 
“The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,”  He  reads,  “be- 
cause He  anointed  me  to  preach.”  ^ God,”  com- 
ments St.  Peter,  “anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power:  who  went  about 
doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed  of 
the  devil;  for  God  was  with  him.”^  Thus  if  His 
miraculous  power  appears  as  the  appropriate  endow- 
ment of  His  person,  it  was  still  a gift  of  God  to  Him 
1 Heb.  iv.  15.  2 gt,  Luke  iv.  18.  ® Acts  x.  38. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


15& 


as  man.  “ The  power  of  the  Lord  was  with  Him  to 
heal,”  says  the  evangelist:  ‘‘by  the  Spirit  of  God” 
He  Himself  declared,  He  cast  out  devils : ^ and  St. 
John,  in  recording  the  words  of  Jesus  before  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  would  teach  us  to  see  at  least 
in  some  of  His  miracles,  what  is  suggested  also  else- 
where by  our  Lord’s  gestures,  a power  dependent  on 
the  exercise  of  prayer.  “Father,  I thank  thee  that 
thou  didst  hear  me.”  ^ 

Once  more,  while  as  very  Son  Jesus  knows  the 
Father  as  He  is  known  of  Him,  and  reveals  Him  to 
whom  He  will.  He  does  not  appear  to  teach  out  of  an 
absolute  divine  omniscience,  but  rather  as  conditioned 
by  human  nature.  It  is,  of  course,  beyond  question 
that  our  Lord’s  consciousness,  not  only  towards  God 
but  towards  the  world,  was  extraordinary.  Thus  He 
frequently  exhibits  a supernatural  knowledge,  in- 
sight, and  foresight.  He  saw  Nathanael  under  the 
fig-tree,  and  knew  the  incident  in  the  life  of  the 
Samaritan  woman,  and  told  Peter  how  he  would  find 
the  piece  of  money  in  the  fish’s  mouth,  and  the  disci- 
ples how  they  would  find  the  colt  tied  up  in  the  vil- 
lage, and  the  man  bearing  a pitcher  of  water  to  take 
them  to  the  upper  chamber.  He  discerned  “ from  the 
beginning  ” the  heart  of  Judas,^  and  prophesied  the 
denial  of  Peter,  and  had  in  view  His  own  passion, 
death,  and  resurrection  the  third  day.  But  all  such 
supernatural  illumination  is,  if  of  higher  quality,  yet 

1 St.  Luke  V.  17 ; St.  Matt.  xii.  28. 

2 St.  John  xi.  41 ; St.  Matt.  xiv.  19 ; St.  Mark  vii.  34. 

3 St.  John  vi.  64. 


160  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

analogous  to  that  vouchsafed  to  prophets  and  apos* 
ties.  It  is  not  necessarily  Divine  consciousness.  And 
it  coincides  in  our  Lord  with  apparent  limitations  of 
knowledge.  The  evidence  for  this  we  may  group 
under  four  heads. 

1.  There  are  attributed  to  our  Lord  constantly 
human  experiences  which  seem  inconsistent  with 
practical  omniscience.  Thus  he  expresses  surprise  at 
the  conduct  of  His  parents,  and  the  unbelief  of  men, 
and  the  barrenness  of  the  fig-tree,  and  the  slowness 
of  His  disciples’  faith.^  He  expresses  surprise  on 
many  occasions,  and  therefore,  we  must  believe, 
really  felt  it,  as  on  other  occasions  He  asks  for  in- 
formation and  receives  it.^  It  is  in  agreement  with 
this,  that  as  St.  Luke  especially  teaches  us,^  He 
lived  in  the  constant  exercise  of  prayer  to  God, 
which  is  the  characteristic  utterance  of  human  faith 
and  trust,  that  human  faith  and  trust  of  which  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  sees  in  Jesus  the  supreme 
example.^ 

This  reality  of  human  faith  becomes  more  obvious 
as  the  anxieties  and  terrors  of  the  passion  close  in 
upon  Him.  He  shows  us  then  the  spectacle  of  true 
man,  weighted  with  a crushing  burden,  the  dread  of  a 
catastrophe  awful  and  unfathomed.  It  was  only  be- 
cause the  future  was  not  clear  that  He  could  pray : 

0 my  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  away 

1 St.  Luke  ii.  49;  St.  Mark  vi.  6,  xi.  13,  iv.  40,  vii.  18,  viii.  21,  xiv.  37. 

2 St.  Luke  viii.  30;  St.  Mark  vi.  38,  viii.  5,  ix.  21;  St.  John  xi.  34. 

8 St.  Luke  iii.  21,  v.  16,  vi.  12,  ix.  18,  28,  xxii.  32,  42,  x.  21. 

4 Heb.  ii.  13,  I will  put  my  trust  in  him  xii.  2,  “ the  captain  oi 
our  faith,*’  i.e.  leader  in  the  life  of  faith;  see  Westcott  in  loc. 


MAN  BEVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


l&l 


from  me.”  ^ Boldly  simple  is  the  language  of  the 
inspired  commentator  on  this  scene  of  the  agony : 

Christ,”  he  says,  ‘‘  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  having 
offered  up  prayers  and  supplications  with  strong  cry^ 
ing  and  tears  unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him  from 
death,  and  having  been  heard  for  his  godly  fear,  though 
he  was  a Son,  yet  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which 
he  suffered.”  No  language  less  than  this  would  corre- 
spond with  the  historical  narrative,  but  it  is  language 
which  implies  very  strongly  the  exercise  of  human 
faith  in  our  Lord’s  case  ; nor  is  it  possible  that  He 
could  have  cried  with  real  meaning  upon  the  cross : 
“ My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? ” 
unless  He  had  really  entered  into  the  experience 
which  originally  prompted  that  cry  of  the  Psalmist, 
into  the  trial  of  the  soul  from  whom  God  hides  His 
face,  the  trial  of  the  righteous  man  forsaken. 

2.  Though  our  Lord  knew  so  well,  and  told  so 
plainly,  the  moral  conditions  of  the  great  judgment 
to  come,  and  discerned  so  clearly  its  particular  appli- 
cation in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  yet  He  ex- 
pressly declared,  as  St.  Matthew  as  well  as  St.  Mark 
assures  us,  that  of  the  day  and  the  hour  of  His  second 
coming,  no  one  knew  except  the  Father,  not  even 
the  angels  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son ; ^ — 
and  we  cannot  hold  this  declaration  apart  from  the 
other  indications  that  are  given  us  of  a limited  human 
consciousness. 

3.  A similar  impression  is  left  on  our  mind  by  the 

1 St.  Matt.  xxvi.  39. 

* St.  Matt.  xxiv.  36  [r.  v.]  ; St.  Mark  xiii.  32. 


162  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Gospel  of  St.  John.  Unmistakably  is  our  Lord  there 
put  before  us  as  the  eternal  Son  of  the  Father  incar- 
nate, but  it  also  appears  that  the  Son  of  the  Father 
is  living  and  teaching  under  human  conditions : He 
speaks  the  words  of  God,  St.  John  tells  us,  because 
God  ‘‘giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure,”  that  is, 
because  of  the  complete  endowment  of  His  manhood. 
He  Himself  says,  that  He  accomplishes  “what  the 
Father  taught  Him”:  that  He  can  do  only  “what 
He  sees  the  Father  doing  ” : that  the  Father  makes 
to  Him  a progressive  revelation,  “ He  shall  show 
Him  greater  works  than  these  ” : that  the  Father 
“gave  Him”  the  divine  “Name,”  that  is,  the  posi- 
tive revelation  of  Himself,  to  communicate  to  the 
Apostles : that  He  has  made  known  to  them  “all  things 
that  He  had  heard  of  the  Father,”  or  “ the  words 
which  the  Father  had  given  Him.”^  The  idea  is 
thus  irresistibly  suggested  of  a message  of  definite 
nontent  made  over  to  our  Lord  to  impart.  Now, 
nven  though  we  bear  in  mind  to  the  fullest  extent 
the  eternal  subordination  and  receptivity  of  the  Son, 
it  still  remains  plain  that  words  such  as  have  been 
quoted  express  Him  as  receiving  and  speaking  under 
the  limitations  of  a properly  human  state. 

4.  Lastly,  there  is  the  argument  from  silence,  coin- 
cident with  these  indications.  Our  Lord  exhibits 
insight  and  foresight  of  prophetic  quality.  He  ex- 
hibits towards  all  facts  of  physical  nature  the  recep- 
tiveness of  a perfect  sonship,  so  that,  for  example, 
the  laws  of  natural  waste  and  growth  are  pointed 

1 St.  John  iii.  34,  viii.  28,  v.  19,  20,  xvii.  11,  8,  xv.  15. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


163 


out  by  Him  with  consummate  accuracy  in  the  parable 
of  the  sower.  But  He  never  enlarges  our  stock  of 
natural  knowledge,  physical  or  historical,  out  of  the 
divine  omniscience. 

The  recognition  of  these  phenomena  of  our  Lord’s 
life  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  up  to  the  time  of 
His  death  He  lived  and  taught.  He  thought  and  was 
inspired  and  was  tempted,  as  true  and  proper  man, 
under  the  limitations  of  consciousness  which  alone 
make  possible  a really  human  experience.  Of  this 
part  of  our  heritage  we  must  not  allow  ourselves  to 
be  robbed,  by  being  “ wise  above  that  which  is  writ- 
ten.” The  evidences  that  our  Lord  really  lived 
under  human  limitations  are  as  plain  as  the  evidences 
that  in  and  under  the  properly  human  nature.  He 
who  spoke,  and  worked,  and  suffered,  was  the  Son  of 
God,  one  with  the  Father.  But  then,  you  will  say, 
how  are  the  phenomena  to  be  reconciled  in  one  con- 
ception ? how  can  we  imagine  the  consistency  of  the 
Godhead  with  the  manhood  ? 

III. 

Before  we  approach  the  consideration  of  this  ques- 
tion, let  us  determine  at  any  rate  to  be  true  to  the 
facts  which  the  Gospels  supply,  even  though  in  doing 
so  we  have  to  part  company,  more  or  less,  with  two 
much  opposed  classes  of  theologians. 

I have  already  spoken  of  the  method  of  the  scho- 
lastic and  later  dogmatic  theologians  of  whom  no 
more  capable  representative  is  to  be  found  than  the 


164  THE  INCABNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

learned  Jesuit  De  Lugo.^  He  of  course  accepts  all 
the  decrees  of  the  general  councils,  and  the  few  de- 
cisions which  have  been  given  by  popes,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Incarnation.  And  he  has  in  mind  all  the 
opinions  of  the  theologians,  on  each  point  that  comes 
under  review.  These  decrees,  decisions  and  opinions 
form  the  material  on  which  he  works,  and  out  of  them 
he  elaborates  a conception  of  Christ’s  person,  coherent 
indeed  and  exact  enough  to  satisfy  any  mind,  but 
strangely  unlike  the  picture  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  a 
picture  of  a human  Christ,  who,  if  He  was  as  far  as 
His  body  is  concerned  in  a condition  of  growth,  was 
as  regards  His  soul  and  intellect,  from  the  first  mo- 
ment and  throughout  His  life,  in  full  enjoyment  of 
the  beatific  vision.  Externally  a wayfarer,  a ‘‘via- 
tor,” inwardly  He  was  throughout  a “ comprehensor,” 
He  had  already  attained.  Thus,  from  the  first  in- 
stant of  its  existence.  His  humanity  possessed  at  least 
perfect  actual  knowledge  of  all  reality  past,  present, 
and  future,  in  virtue  of  its  union  with  the  Divine 
Word;  and  over  and  above  this,  an  infused  knowl- 
edge, covering  for  practical  purposes  the  same  range, 
so  that  it  is  stated  to  be  a matter  almost  of  indiffer- 
ence whether  He  be  supposed  to  have  acquired 
knowledge  gradually  or  at  a bound,  and  in  fact  such 
acquisition  of  knowledge  loses  all  reality  when  His 
manhood  was  by  other  means  fully  equipped  with  all 
possible  knowledge  from  the  first.  It  is  denied  that 
He  used  the  discursive  reason,  or  was  ever  subject  to 
privation  of  knowledge,  or  was  in  a condition  of 
1 See  app.  note  45. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


165 


uncertainty;  it  is  denied  that  He  can  strictly  be 
called  ‘Hhe  servant  of  God”  even  as  man,  in  spite 
of  the  direct  use  of  that  expression  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  He  is  spoken  of  at  the  institution  of 
the  eucharist  as  offering  sacrifice  to  His  own  God- 
head. 

Now  on  each  of  these  points  the  position  of  De 
Lugo  stands  in  more  or  less  striking  contradiction 
to  what  the  New  Testament  would  lead  us  to  believe 
to  be  true.  Yet  one  finds,  one  is  almost  irritated  to 
find,  that  these  positions  are  regarded  as  only  state- 
ments of  what  was  true  in  fact ; it  being  admitted, 
for  example,  that  it  was  possible  in  the  abstract,  for 
the  humanity  of  Christ  to  have  contracted  even 
actual  error,  where  such  error  would  not  have  af- 
fected the  purpose  of  His  mission,  if  the  divine 
power  had  allowed  it  to  err.  These  positions  then 
are  supposed  to  be  only  statements  of  what  was  true 
in  fact : they  are  mostly  admitted  at  the  last  resort 
to  be  not  ‘‘  of  faith.”  Yet  in  spite  of  this  d priori 
freedom  in  abstract  possibility,  and  this  comparative 
liberty  in  the  region  of  dogma,  the  facts  of  the  his- 
torical Gospels  are  never  really  examined  at  all.  All 
that  we  have  given  to  us  is  an  d priori  picture  of 
what  an  Incarnation  may  be  thought  to  have  in- 
volved ; which  yet,  in  the  region  of  the  later  western 
theology,  so  preoccupies  the  mind,  as  in  great  meas- 
ure to  deprive  it  of  contact  with  the  historical  Christ. 
Surely  we  have  a warning  here  against  d priori 
methods ; surely  we  are  justified  in  feeling  that  those 
who  give  the  highest  meaning  to  the  inspiration  of 


166  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

holy  scripture  as  a doctrine,  may  be  least  at  pains  to 
pay  attention  to  what  it  actually  says. 

But  there  are  others,  belonging  to  very  modern 
ways  of  thought,  who  assure  us  that  Christ,  because 
He  was  man,  must  have  been  at  least  peccable  or 
liable  to  sin,  and  fallible  or  liable  to  make  mistakes. 
Now  something  will  be  said  in  the  next  lecture  in 
regard  to  the  position  that  our  Lord  actually  com- 
mitted Himself  to  an  error  of  fact  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  the  110th  Psalm.  Assuming  for  the 
moment,  that  our  Lord’s  allusion  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  this  case,  as  in  others,  affords  no  ground  for 
attributing  to  Him  erroneous  teaching;  assuming 
this,  and  looking  at  the  matter  in  general,  must  we 
not  admit  that  the  idea  of  a fallible  or  peccable 
Christ,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  those  terms,  has  the 
same  abstract  character  as  the  doctrine  of  the  later 
dogmatists.  Place  youself  face  to  face  with  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospels;  let  His  words.  His  claim. 
His  tone,  make  upon  you  their  natural  impression ; 
and  you  will  not,  I believe,  find  that  He  will  allow 
you  to  think  of  Him  as  either  liable  to  sin,  or  liable 
to  mislead.  He  never  fears  sin,  or  hints  that  He 
might  be  found  inadequate  to  the  tremendous  charge 
He  bore ; He  does  not  let  us  think  of  Him  as  grow- 
ing better  or  as  needing  improvement,  though  He 
passes  through  each  imperfect  stage  of  manhood  to 
completeness.  He  challenges  criticism.  He  speaks 
as  the  invincible  emancipator  of  man,  the  deliverer 
who  binds  the  strong  captor  and  spoils  his  goods. 
He  appears  in  no  relation  to  sin,  but  as  the  discerner. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


167 


the  conqueror,  the  judge  of  it,  in  all  its  forms  and  to 
the  end  of  time.  In  the  same  way,  whenever  and 
whomsoever  He  teaches,  it  is  in  the  tone  which 
could  only  be  morally  justifiable  in  the  case  of  one 
who  taught  without  risk  of  mistake ; claiming  by  His 
own  inherent  right  the  submission  of  the  conscience 
and  will  and  intellect  of  men.  ‘‘Heaven  and  earth,” 
He  said,  “ shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not 
pass  away.”i  “Lo,”  said  His  Apostles,  amazed  at 
the  openness  and  security  with  which  He  spoke 
before  His  passion,  discerning  their  hearts  and  satis- 
fying their  doubts,  “ now  know  we  that  thou  knowest 
all  things,  and  needest  not  that  any  man  should  ask 
thee : by  this  we  believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from 
God.”  2 

Indeed,  when  men  suggest  fallibility  in  our  Lord’s 
teaching,  or  peccability  in  His  character,  it  is  as  much 
in  the  teeth  of  the  Gospel  record  as  when  on  the 
other  hand  they  deny  Him  limitation  of  knowledge, 
or  the  reality  of  a human,  moral,  trial,  in  the  days  of 
His  flesh.  We  will  be  true  to  the  record,  then,  at  all 
costs ; and  resolved  on  this,  let  us  approach  the  ques- 
tion how  the  two  sides  of  the  evidence  are  to  combine 
into  a unity  in  our  conception  of  Christ’s  person. 


IV. 

As  we  look  at  the  history  in  the  Gospels  we  see 
side  by  side  in  J esus,  a life  of  one  who  dwells  in  the 
Father,  and  manifests  the  Father,  and  a truly  human 
1 St.  Matt.  xxiv.  35.  ^ gt,  John  xvi.  30. 


168  THE  INCAENATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

life  of  joy  and  sorrow,  sympathy  and  antagonism, 
trial  and  victory,  faith  and  prayer.  These  two  lives, 
as  we  think  of  them,  apart,  are  in  strongly  marked 
contrast,  but  they  are  not  incompatible.  We  find 
something  analogous  to  them  in  the  case  of  a prophet 
like  Jeremiah.  In  his  case,  too,  there  is  the  life  of 
divinely-given  certainty  in  insight  and  foresight, 
based  upon  the  divine  word  communicated  and  the 
vision  of  God  vouchsafed:  and,  side  by  side  with 
it,  the  life  of  intense  personal  trial  and  dismay. 
Here  again  the  lives  are  contrasted  as  we  think  of 
them  separately:  — of  Jeremiah  with  God’s  words  in 
his  mouth,  set  over  the  nations  and  over  the  king- 
doms, and  of  Jeremiah,  the  man  of  sorrows  and  com- 
plaints, crying  O Lord,  Thou  hast  deceived  me, 
and  I was  deceived.  Thou  art  stronger  than  I and 
hast  prevailed  : I am  become  a laughing-stock  all  the 
day,  every  one  mocketh  me.”  But  the  two  lives  fade 
into  one  another  in  the  record,  and  present  the  pic- 
ture of  the  one  person.  In  the  case  of  our  Lord  the 
eternal  Sonship  necessarily  gave  to  His  teaching  a 
personal  tone,  unmistakably  distinct  from  that  of 
any  of  the  prophets.  But  the  analogy  of  the  prophets 
is  sufficient  to  show  us  that  the  plenary  authority  of 
our  Lord’s  teaching,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
limitations  of  consciousness  exhibited  in  His  experi- 
ence of  human  trial,  are  not  incompatible  elements, 
arbitrarily  put  into  juxtaposition,  any  more  than 
parallel  phenomena  in  the  case  of  God’s  lower  mes- 
sengers. 

They  are  not  in  themselves  incompatible  elements, 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


169 


but  our  perception  of  their  unity,  that  is,  our  power 
of  interpreting  the  Incarnation,  will  depend  chiefly 
on  our  having  clearly  in  view,  its  motive^  and  its 
method, 

A divine  motive  caused  the  Incarnation.  It  was  a 
deliberate  act  of  God  propter  nos  homines  et  propter 
nostram  salutem  ” : it  was  a ‘‘  means  devised  ” for 
our  recovery  and  for  our  consummation,  a means, 
therefore,  directed  and  adapted  in  the  divine  wisdom, 
to  serve  its  purpose.  That  purpose  included  on  the 
one  side  a clearer  revelation  of  God’s  mind  and  being 
to  man  in  terms  intelligible  to  him,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  the  exhibition  of  the  true  ideal  of  human 
nature.  Now  for  the  first  part  of  the  purpose,  for 
the  unveiling  of  the  divine  character,  what  was  nec- 
essary was  that  the  humanity  should  reflect,  without 
refracting,  the  divine  Being  whose  organ  it  was  made. 
It  could  not  be  too  pure  a channel,  too  infallible  a 
voice,  provided  it  was  really  human  and  fitted  to 
man.  Thus  in  fact,  in  becoming  incarnate,  the  Son 
of  God  retained  and  expressed  His  essential  relation 
to  the  Father;  he  received,  therefore,  as  eternally,  so 
in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  the  consciousness  of  His  own 
and  of  His  Father’s  being,  and  the  power  to  reveal 
that  which  He  knew.  ^‘No  man,”  He  said,  ‘‘knoweth 
the  Son  save  the  Father;  neither  knoweth  any  man 
the  Father”  (not,  knew  but  knoweth')  ‘‘save  the  Son, 
and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  willeth  to  reveal 
Him.”  Limited  moreover,  as  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  remark,  as  is  His  disclosure  of  the  unseen  world, 
what  He  does  disclose  is  in  the  tone  of  one  who 


170  THE  INCAENATIOH  OF  THE  SOH  OF  GOD. 

speaks  that  he  doth  know,  and  testifies  that  he  hath 
seen  ” : for  example,  “ I say  unto  you,  that  in  heaven 
the  angels  of  the  little  ones  do  always  behold  the 
face  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.”  In  my 
Father’s  house  are  many  mansions;  if  it  were  not 
so  I would  have  told  you.”  ^ Plainly  the  continu- 
ous personality  of  the  Son  carried  with  it  a continu- 
ous consciousness,  which  if  the  human  nature  was 
allowed  to  subject  to  limitation,  it  was  not  allowed 
to  deface  or  to  distort.  What  He  teaches,  He  teaches 
so  that  we  can  depend  upon  it  to  the  uttermost,  and 
the  fact  is  explained  by  the  motive  of  the  Incarnation. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  Lord  is  to  exhibit  a true 
example  of  manhood  — tried,  progressive,  perfected. 
For  this  purpose  it  was  necessary  that  He  should  be 
without  the  exercise  of  such  divine  prerogatives  as 
would  have  made  human  experience  or  progress  im- 
possible. He  could  not,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  abiding 
in  the  exercise  of  an  absolute  consciousness,  have 
grown  in  knowledge,  or  have  prayed,  ‘‘  Father,  if  it  be 
possible,”  or  cried,  My  God,  my  God,  why  ” — He 
could  not,  that  is,  have  passed  through  those  very 
experiences,  which  have  brought  him  closest  to  us  in 
our  spiritual  trials. 

So  far  the  facts  of  the  Incarnation  are  accounted 
for  by  the  divine  motive  which  underlay  it ; but  they 
are  interpreted  further  by  the  divine  method  or  prin- 
ciple of  action  as  St.  Paul  unfolds  it  to  us.  He  de- 
scribes it  as  a self-emptying.2  Christ  Jesus  pre-existed, 


1 St.  Matt,  xviii.  10 ; St.  John  xiv.  2. 

2 Phil.  ii.  5-11 ; see  Lightfoot  in  loc. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


171 


he  declares,  in  the/orm  of  God.  The  word  form 
transferred  from  physical  shape  to  spiritual  type,  de- 
scribes — as  St.  Paul  uses  it,  alone  or  in  composition, 
with  uniform  accuracy  — the  permanent  character- 
istics of  a thing.  Jesus  Christ  then,  in  his  pre-exist- 
ent state,  was  living  in  the  permanent  characteristics 
of  the  life  of  God.  In  such  a life  it  was  His  right  to 
remain.  It  belonged  to  him.  But  He  regarded  not 
His  prerogatives,  as  a man  regards  a prize  He  must 
clutch  at.  For  love  of  us  He  abjured  the  preroga- 
tives of  equality  with  God.  By  an  act  of  deliberate 
self-abnegation.  He  so  emptied  Himself  as  to  assume 
the  permanent  characteristics  of  the  human  or  servile 
life : He  took  the  form  of  a servant.  Not  only  so, 
but  He  was  made  in  outward  appearance  like  other 
men  and  was  found  in  fashion  as  a man,  that  is,  in 
the  transitory  quality  of  our  mortality.  The  ‘‘  form,’^ 
the  likeness,”  the  ‘‘  fashion  ” of  manhood,  he  took 
them  all.  Thus,  remaining  in  unchanged  personality. 
He  abandoned  certain  prerogatives  of  the  divine  mode 
of  existence  in  order  to  assume  the  human. 

Again  St.  Paul  describes  the  Incarnation  as  a “ self- 
beggary.” ^ The  metaphor  suggests  a man  of  wealth 
who  deliberately  abandons  the  prerogatives  of  posses- 
sion to  enter  upon  the  experience  of  poverty,  not  be- 
cause he  thinks  it  a better  state,  but  in  order  to  help 
others  up  through  real  fellowship  with  their  experi- 
ence to  a life  of  weal.  Ye  know  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that,  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for 
your  sakes  he  beggared  himself,  that  ye  through  his 
1 2 Cor.  viii.  9. 


172  THE  INCAEHATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

poverty  might  be  rich.”  This  is  how  St.  Paul  inter- 
prets our  Lord’s  coming  down  from  heaven,  and  it  is 
manifest  that  it  expresses  something  very  much  more 
than  the  mere  addition  of  a manhood  to  his  Godhead. 
In  a certain  aspect  indeed  the  Incarnation  is  the 
folding  round  the  Godhead  of  the  veil  of  the  human- 
ity, to  hide  its  glory,  but  it  is  much  more  than  this. 
It  is  a ceasing  to  exercise  certain  natural  prerogatives 
of  the  divine  existence  ; it  is  a coming  to  exist  for  love 
of  us  under  conditions  of  being  not  natural  to  the  Son  of 
God. 

The  act,  which  on  the  part  of  the  Son  is  thus  repre- 
sented as  an  abandoning  of  what  He  possessed,  is  on 
the  part  of  the  Father  also  represented  as  a real  sur- 
render, a real  giving-up  of  the  Son,  as  a father  among 
us  might  give  up  his  son  to  be  a missionary  : “ So  God 
loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son.” 

He  gave  him  up  for  us.”  ^ 

We  must  dwell,  more  than  we  are  apt  to  do,  on  the 
principle  or  method  of  divine  action  thus  exhibited 
to  us.  What  is  revealed  is,  that  for  our  sates,  the 
Son  of  God  abandoned  His  own  prerogatives  in  God, 
in  order  as  man  to  merit  and  win,  by  gradual  and 
painful  effort,  a glory  which  in  right  might  have  been 
His  all  along,  the  glory  which  He  had  with  the 
Father  before  the  world  was.  Of  the  results  of  this 
self-emptying  we  can  only  judge  by  the  record  in  the 
Gospels.  That  our  Lord  could  not  lose  His  personal- 
ity, or  essential  relation  to  the  Father,  is  indeed  cer- 
tain d priori  and  is  confirmed  in  the  record.  The 
1 St.  John  iii.  16 ; Rom.  viii.  32 ; 1 St.  John  iv.  9. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


173 


personality  is,  then,  throughout  the  same;  but  in 
regard  to  the  divine  attributes,  what  He  retained  in 
exercise  and  what  He  abandoned  — whether  He  aban- 
doned only  the  manifest  glory,  or  also,  for  example, 
the  exercise  of  the  divine  omniscience  — we  could 
hardly  form  any  judgment  d priori ; but  the  record 
seems  to  assure  us  that  our  Lord  in  His  mortal  life 
was  not  habitually  living  in  the  exercise  of  omni- 
science. 

Is  then  such  a self-emptying  intelligible?  It  is 
easy  to  see  that  it  involves  no  dishonouring  of  the 
eternal  Son,  no  attribution  to  Him  of  failing  powers. 
‘Ht  was  not,”  says  St.  Leo,  ‘‘the  failure  of  power,  but 
the  condescension  of  pity.”^  There  was  conscious 
voluntariness  in  all  our  Lord’s  self-abnegation;  ‘‘I 
have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,”  He  said,  and  I 
have  power  to  take  it  again  ” : Thinkest  thou  that 
I cannot  beseech  my  Father,  and  He  shall  even  now 
send  me  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels.”  ^ This 
same  deliberateness  belongs,  we  must  suppose,  to  the 
limitation  of  consciousness  under  which  our  Lord  is 
found.  And  God  declares  His  almighty  power  most 
chiefly  in  such  an  act  of  voluntary  self-limitation  for 
the  purposes  of  sympathy.  It  is  physical  power 
which  makes  itself  felt  only  in  self-assertion  and  press- 
ure ; it  is  the  higher  power  of  love  which  is  shown 
in  self-effacement.^  The  power  to  think  one’s  self 
into  another’s  thoughts,  to  look  through  another’s 
eyes,  to  feel  with  another’s  feeling,  to  merge  one’s 

1 St.  Leo,  Ep.  xxviii.  3.  2 gt.  John  x.  18 ; St.  Matt.  xxvi.  53. 

3 See  app.  note  46. 


174  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

self  in  another’s  interests,  — this  is  the  higher  power, 
the  power  of  love,  and  we  owe  it  to  the  Incarnation 
that  we  know  God  to  possess  and  to  use,  not  only  the 
power  to  vindicate  Himself,  but  the  power  also  of 
self-limitation. 

But,”  it  may  be  asked,  “ is  such  a process  as  that 
of  abjuring  the  exercise  of  consciousness  really  think- 
able ? ” In  a measure  it  is,  because  it  is  realized  in  all 
sympathy.  There  are  two  ways  of  helping  others. 
We  may  help  them  from  the  secure  platform  of  a 
superior  position;  we  may  give  them  information 
from  the  vantage-ground  of  superior  knowledge  in 
the  form  which  that  knowledge  naturally  takes. 
But  we  may  help  them  also  by  the  method  of  sym- 
pathy, and  this  means  a real  entrance  into  the  condi- 
tions of  another’s  consciousness.  By  this  method 
the  grown  teacher  accommodates  himself  to  the 
child’s  mind,  the  educated  to  the  mind  of  the  savage ; 
and  thus,  mind  acts  upon  mind  by  the  way  of  force 
infusing  itself  from  within,  rather  than  of  alien  in- 
formation conveyed  simply  from  without.  In  such 
action  there  is  involved  a real  abandonment  of  the 
prerogatives  which  belong  to  a superior  state  of  con- 
sciousness, and  those  will  most  easily  understand  this 
who  have  been  at  most  deliberate  pains  to  cultivate 
the  life  of  sympathy.  Beyond  this  we  can  readily 
conceive  that  the  attributes  and  powers  of  God  must 
be  more  wholly,  than  is  the  case  with  us,  under  the 
control  of  the  will.  They  must  be  less  mechanical 
and  more  voluntary.  God  cannot  act  against  the 
perfect  law  of  reason,  but  what  the  divine  love  and 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


175 


reason  demand,  that  the  divine  will  can  make  pos- 
sible. 

But  after  all,  we  shall  not  if  we  are  wise,  expect 
to  understand  the  whole  matter.  It  has  been  well 
said  that  we  must  all  be  agnostics,  if  we  only  put 
our  agnosticism  in  the  right  place.”  We  do  know 
God  really;  our  own  best  methods  teach  us  really 
the  methods  of  God ; but  not  adequately,  not  com- 
pletely. The  methods  of  God  are  of  the  same  kind, 
but  inconceivably  more  intense  and  more  far-reaching. 
Thus,  if  our  own  deliberate  acts  of  sympathy  have  in 
them  something  analogous  to  the  act  of  God  in  incar- 
nation, they  do  not  reach  all  the  way  to  the  explana- 
tion of  it ; for  sacrifice  ourselves  as  we  may  we  cannot 
enter  into  a new  state  of  being,  or  pass  through 
any  transition  comparable  to  that  involved  in  the  in- 
carnation of  the  Son  of  God.  It  must  have  involved 
an  act  of  self-limitation  greater  than  we  can  fathom, 
for  the  eternal  to  begin  to  think  and  act  and  speak 
under  conditions  of  humanity. 

Thus  far,  however,  we  can  see  our  way.  The  In- 
carnation involves  both  the  self-expression,  and  the 
self-limitation,  of  God.  God  can  express  Himself  in 
true  manhood  because  manhood  is  truly  and  origi- 
nally made  in  God’s  image ; and  on  the  other  hand 
God  can  limit  Himself  by  the  conditions  of  manhood, 
because  the  Godhead  contains  in  itself  eternally  the 
prototype  of  human  self-sacrifice  and  self-limitation, 
for  God  is  love. 


176  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


V. 

Let  me  state  in  other  terms  the  result  we  have  ar- 
rived at.  We  conceive  that  in  the  Incarnation  the 
eternal  Son  really  so  assumed  our  manhood  in  its 
completeness  in  the  womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  as 
to  be  to  it  its  centre  of  personality,  and  to  use  all  its 
faculties  as  His  own  in  every  stage  of  their  develop- 
ment. We  conceive  that  He  thus  assumed  our  man- 
hood, in  part  in  order  to  make  through  it  a revelation 
of  the  character  and  being  of  God,  such  as  should  be 
both  true  and  intelligible  to  us,  as  expressed  in  the 
language  of  our  own  nature : in  part  also,  in  order  to 
set  the  example  of  a true  human  life  in  its  relation 
both  towards  God  and  towards  man.  We  conceive 
further  that,  in  order  to  this  true  human  example, 
the  eternal  Son  so  far  restrained  the  natural  action 
of  the  divine  being  as,  in  St.  Cyril’s  phrase,  ‘‘  to  suffer 
the  measures  of  our  manhood  to  prevail  over  Him  ” : ^ 
so  that  He  passed  through  all  stages  of  a human  de- 
velopment, willing  with  a human  will,  perceiving 
with  human  perceptions,  feeling  with  human  feelings^ 
receiving,  and  depending  upon,  the  illuminating  and 
consecrating  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  thus 
fathoming  to  their  depths  the  experiences  which  can 
come  upon  man  in  accordance  with  God’s  will. 

In  forming  such  a conception  as  this,  we  must  nec- 
essarily set  many  questions  aside  which  we  cannot 
answer.  We  make  no  pretence  — God  forbid  that  we 

1 St.  Cyril,  Quod  unus  Christus,  ed.  Pusey,  vol.  vii.  pt.  I.  p.  399. 


MAN  KEYEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


177 


should  — to  exhaust  the  depths  of  a divine  mystery. 
But  so  far  as  we  go  we  seem  to  be  moving  within  the 
lines  of  dogma  and  doing  justice  to  all  the  intimations 
of  scripture.  Throughout  the  Incarnation  the  per- 
son of  the  Son  is  unchanged ; and  since  the  Incarna- 
tion, He  is  at  every  moment  and  in  every  act  both 
God  and  man ; but  the  relation  of  the  two  natures  is 
different  at  different  epochs.  Before  His  resurrec- 
tion, He,  very  God,  is  acting  under  conditions  of 
manhood;  since  His  glorification  He,  very  man,  is 
living  under  conditions  of  Godhead.  First  the  God- 
head exhibits  itself  under  conditions  of  manhood, 
and  then  the  manhood  is  glorified  under  conditions 
of  Godhead. 

In  so  conceiving  of  our  Lord  in  His  Incarnation, 
we  are  as  I have  said,  well  within  the  limits  of  those 
prescribed  dogmas  which  were  intended  as  restraints 
on  error,  rather  than  as  sources  of  information.  Fur- 
ther than  this,  we  receive  a great  deal  of  sanction 
from  the  best  early  theologians,^  from  St.  Irenseus  to 
Theodoret,  and  from  some  of  the  best  theologians 
of  the  Anglican  Church  since  the  Reformation.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  true  that  many  of  the  Fathers, 
beginning  with  Hilary  and  Augustine,  and  almost  all 
mediaeval  theologians,  decline  to  allow  in  our  Lord’s 
humanity  any  such  limitation  of  consciousness  as  the 
New  Testament  seems  to  postulate.  In  view  of  such 
fact  there  are  three  considerations  which  should  not 
be  omitted. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  much  easier  intellectually 

1 See  app.  note  47.  ^ See  app.  note  48. 


178  THE  IHCAKNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

for  them,  than  it  is  for  us,  to  explain  away  the  plain 
meaning  of  words,  as  in  other  books,  so  equally  in 
the  New  Testament.  Exact  interpretation  is,  more 
or  less,  a growth  of  recent  times,  which  brings  with 
it  corresponding  responsibilities.  If  mediaeval  writers 
surpass  us  in  subtlety  of  theological  perception,  we 
have  better  opportunities  than  they,  of  understanding 
what  the  writers  of  scripture  actually  meant. 

Secondly,  it  was  easier  morally  for  churchmen 
of  past  ages  than  it  is  for  us,  to  suggest  that  when 
our  Lord  said,  ‘‘He  did  not  know”;  He  meant 
that  He  knew  but  would  not  tell.  The  indignant 
protest  of  Theodoret  against  such  an  interpretation 
would  find  an  echo  in  almost  every  modern  con- 
science.^ 

Thirdly,  there  were  causes,  which  have  not  been 
sufficiently  taken  into  account,  tending  to  make  medi- 
aeval theologians  depreciate  the  real  significance  of 
our  Lord’s  truly  human  condition.  Of  these,  not  the 
least  considerable  was  the  almost  apostolic  authority 
attributed  to  the  writer  who  was  believed  to  be 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  the  convert  of  St.  Paul; 
but  who  was  in  fact  a fifth  or  sixth  century  writer, 
of  unmistakably  monophysite  tendency,  in  whom  the 
Incarnation  was  viewed  almost  exclusively  as  a the- 
ophany.  Thus  it  was  said  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas, 
with  not  more  than  an  exaggeration  of  truth,  that 
“ he  drank  almost  his  whole  theological  doctrine  out 
of  the  most  pure  wells  of  Dionysius.”  ^ 

1 See  app.  note  49. 

2 See  Westcott’s  Relig.  Thought  iji  the  West  (Macmillan,  1891), 
p.  152  ff. 


MAN  RBYEALBD  IN  CHBIST. 


179 


In  view  of  such  considerations  it  is  no  exaggeration 
to  say  that  the  real  pressure  of  the  problem  we  have 
been  considering  in  this  lecture,  exegetical,  moral, 
and  theological,  was  not  felt  by  mediaeval  writers  as 
we  cannot  fail  to  feel  it.  Thus  in  asking  men  to  fall 
back  upon  the  church’s  formal  decisions  about  our 
Lord’s  person  and  upon  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  to  reconsider,  on  this  basis,  the  moral  and 
human  meaning  of  the  Incarnation,  we  are  not  asking 
them  to  re-open  a problem  which  can  be  represented 
as  either  dogmatically  decided  or  fairly  considered. 


VI. 

Jesus  Christ  then  is  the  Son  of  man ; and  as  we 
approach  to  accept  from  Him  the  standard  of  our 
manhood,  we  are  struck  both  by  His  likeness,  and  by 
His  unlikeness,  to  ourselves.  Let  us  devote  the  con- 
cluding portion  of  this  lecture  to  considering  three 
respects  in  which  Jesus,  because  His  humanity  is 
perfect,  presents  features  of  unlikeness  to  other  men. 

(1)  In  the  first  place  in  Him  humanity  is  sinless. 
He  is  represented  to  us  in  the  wilderness  as  being 
assailed  by  the  three  great  typical  temptations  before 
which  our  race  has  succumbed:  by  the  lust  of  the 
flesh  in  its  most  subtle  form ; by  worldliness  in  the 
form  calculated  to  make  the  most  brilliant  appeal  to 
the  imagination;  and  by  pride  in  the  form  which 
spiritual  and  powerful  minds  have  found  most  seduc- 
tive. In  every  form  temptation  was  rejected,  not 
because  He  had  not  real  human  faculties  to  feel  its 


180  THE  INCARNATION  OP  THE  SON  OP  GOD. 

force,  but  because  His  faculties  acted  simply  under 
the  control  of  a will,  which  followed  unhesitatingly 
the  movement  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  other  words, 
which  existed  only  to  do  the  Father’s  will.  And 
this  representative  victory  summarizes  His  whole 
human  life  in  its  moral  aspect.  The  prince  of 
this  world  came  and  had  nothing  in  him.”  He  was 
in  all  points  tempted  as  we  are,  apart  from  sin ; that 
is,  so  far  as  a sinless  nature  can  be  tempted,  so  far  as 
one  can  be  effectively  assailed  who  has  not,  as  we 
have,  the  traitor  within  the  camp. 

To  say  that  He  was  sinless  is  to  say  that  He  was 
free.  Moral  freedom  — in  the  sense  in  which  scrip- 
ture and  the  higher  moralists  use  the  term ; in  the 
sense  in  which  Shakespeare  speaks  of  hot  passion  ” 
as  opposed  to  “ the  free  determination  ’twixt  right 
and  wrong  ” — means  not  an  indeterminate  power  to 
choose  this  or  that,  to  do  good  or  bad,  but  the  power 
to  vindicate  the  mastery  of  will  and  to  realize  the 
rational  law  of  our  being.  ‘‘That  man  has  true 
freedom,”  said  St.  Leo,  “ whose  flesh  is  controlled  by 
the  judgment  of  his  mind,  and  whose  mind  is  directed 
by  the  government  of  God.”  ^ Such  was  the  liberty 
of  manhood  in  Jesus  Christ.  He  did  not  sin,  because 
none  of  His  faculties  were  disordered,  there  was  no 
loose  or  ungoverned  movement  in  His  nature,  no 
movement  save  under  the  control  of  His  will.  He 
could  not  sin,  because  sin  being  what  it  is,  rebellion 
against  God,  and  He  being  what  He  was,  the  Father’s 
Son  in  manhood,  the  human  will  which  was  His 

1 S.  Leo,  Serm.  xxxix.  2 ; cf.  xlii.  2. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


181 


instrument  of  moral  action,  could  not  choose  to  sin. 
It  is  right,  as  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Anselm  assure 
us,^  to  say  that  Christ  could  have  refused  obedience 
if  He  had  willed ; what  was  impossible  was  that  He 
should  will  to  sin. 

The  summary  proof,  then,  that  sin  is  not  according 
to  man’s  true  nature,  that  it  is  rebellion  and  not 
nature,  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  Christ,  the  true  man, 
sin  had  no  place.  He  viewed  sin  in  no  other  way 
than  as  the  disease  which  He  came  to  remedy,  the 
havoc  of  the  intruder  whom  He  came  to  expel.  He 
is  the  lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world.”  And  we  look  forward,  through  Him,  to  a 
liberty  like  His : to  a blessed  time,  when  acts  of 
resistance  in  the  power  of  the  divine  Spirit  shall  have 
accumulated  into  habits,  and  habits  shall  have  become 
fixed  as  character,  and  the  liberty  of  the  blessed  shall 
be  ours : which  is,  the  inability  any  longer  to  find 
attraction  in  what  is  not  of  God. 

(2)  In  Jesus  Christ  humanity  was  perfect.  We 
have  no  reason  to  think  that  man  was  originally 
created  perfect.  ^ Irenaeus  and  Clement  expressly 
deny  it.  We  believe  that  when  the  body  of  man  was 
first  made  the  dwelling-place  of  a self-conscious,  free 
personality,  man  might  have  developed  on  the  lines 
of  God’s  intention,  not  without  effort  and  struggle, 
but  without  rebellion  and  under  no  curse.  But  in 
any  case,  all  the  process  of  development  of  all  human 
faculties  lay  before  him.  He  was  imperfect,  and  only 
adapted  to  develop  freely.  But  in  Christ,  humanity 

1 See  app.  note  50.  2 g^e  app.  note  51. 


182  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

is  not  only  free  from  taint,  but,  in  the  moral  and 
spiritual  region,  also  at  the  goal  of  development.  In 
Him  first  we  see  man  completely  in  the  image  of 
God,  realizing  all  that  was  in  the  divine  idea  for  man. 
He  was  perfect  child,  according  to  the  measure  of 
childhood,  boy  according  to  boyhood’s  measure,  man 
according  to  man’s  standard ; and  He  was  perfected 
at  last  according  to  the  final  destiny  of  manhood  in 
eternal  glory.  That  which  without  Him  could  have 
been  no  more  than  a hope  of  immortality,  a dim 
expectation  of  final  perfecting,  becomes  in  Him  a 
realized  certainty.  He  has  ‘‘shed  the  light  on  life 
and  immortality.”  ^ We  behold  Jesus,  not  only  the 
captain  of  our  faith,  but  its  consummator  in  glory. 

(3)  Jesus  Christ  is  the  catholic  man.  In  a sense 
all  the  greatest  men  have  over-stepped  the  boundaries 
of  their  time. 

“ The  truly  great 

Have  all  one  age,  and  from  one  visible  space 
Shed  influence.  They  both  in  power  and  act, 

Are  permanent  and  time  is  not  with  them, 

Save  as  it  worketh  for  them,  they  in  it.” 

But  in  a unique  sense,  the  manhood  of  Jesus  is  catho- 
lic ; because  it  is  exempt,  not  from  the  limitations 
which  belong  to  manhood,  but  from  the  limitations 
which  make  our  manhood  narrow  and  isolated,  merely 
local  or  national.  Born  a man,  and  a Jew,  in  a 
carpenter’s  family.  He  can  be  equally  claimed  by  both 
sexes,  by  all  classes,  by  all  men  of  all  nations.  This 
is  apparent,  in  part,  in  the  broad  appeal  which  Jesus 


1 2 Tim.  i.  10. 


MAN  REVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


18a 


makes  to  man  as  man,  in  His  teaching  and  in  His 
institutions.  We  observe  that  while  He  explicitly 
and  unhesitatingly  legislated  in  regard  to  marriage, 
which  is  an  institution  purely  human  and  catholic. 
He  refused  to  express  any  judgment,  which  could 
have  been  held  to  sanction  merely  national  customs, 
such  as  the  Jewish  law  of  inheritance.^  He  would 
not  put  the  new  wine  into  the  old  bottles.  Again, 
He  converted  the  Jewish  Passover  into  a catholic 
sacrament  with  symbols  common  to  all  men.  Once 
more  He  used  the  scriptures,  as  all  men  may  use 
them.  When  we  compare,”  says  Dr.  Edersheim, 
the  long  discussions  of  the  Rabbis  on  the  letter  and 
law  of  scripture  with  His  references  to  the  word  of 
God,  it  seems  as  if  it  were  quite  another  book  which 
was  being  handled.”  ^ 

But  this  rich  truth  of  our  Lord’s  catholic  manhood 
has  only  been  gradually  apparent  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  Each  race  has  its  special  aptitudes,  its 
‘‘glory  and  honour”;^  and  as  the  glory  and  honour  of 
each  nation  has  been  brought  within  the  light  of 
“the  holy  city,”  — the  versatility  and  intellect  of  the 
Greeks,  the  majestic  discipline  of  the  Romans,  the 
strong  individuality  of  the  Teutons  — each  in  turn 
has  been  able  to  find  its  true  ideal  in  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, not  as  a dream  of  the  imagination,  but  as  a fact 
of  observation,  and  has  marvelled  how  those  that 
were  in  Christ  before  them  could  be  blind  to  the 

1 See  Latham,  Pastor  Pastorumy  p.  404. 

2 Edersheim,  Jesus  the  Messiah  (Longmans,  1884),  i.p.234« 

3 Rev.  xxi.  26. 


184  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

presence  in  Him  of  what  they  so  especially  value. 
Thus  it  is  only  gradually  that  the  true  moral  ideal  of 
Christianity  is  apprehended.  No  doubt,  for  example, 
many  early  Christians  had  an  imperfect  perception  of 
the  obligation  of  truthfulness,  but  when  Augustine 
vigorously  asserted  it  to  be  a part  of  Christian 
morality,  he  asserted  what  is  undoubtedly  true. 
Christ  did  lift  all  conversation  to  the  level  of  abso- 
lute truthfulness,  to  the  level  formerly  held  only  by 
statements  under  oath : “ Let  your  yea  be  yea,  and 
your  nay  nay.”  We  in  our  time,  to  take  only  one 
more  example,  have  learnt  to  give  great  prominence 
to  the  virtue  of  considerateness.  The  rough  and 
summary  classifications  of  men  in  groups,  the  equally 
rough  and  summary  condemnations  of  them,  the 
inconsiderate  treatment  of  heretics  and  even  of 
speculators,  these  facts  in  church  history  strike  us  as 
painful  and  unworthy.  Considerateness,  we  say,  is 
a Christian  virtue.  ‘^Let  your  considerateness  be 
known  unto  all  men.”  ^ We  look  back  to  our  Lord, 
and  are  astonished  that  any  can  have  failed  to  see 
His  intense  respect  for  individuality,  His  freedom 
from  fanaticism,  in  a word  His  considerateness.  Cer- 
tainly, it  is  there.  Only  lest  we  should  be  arrogant, 
we  need  to  remember  that  other  ages  and  other 
races  have  caught  more  readily  in  Him  what  we 
ignore  — His  antagonism  to  pride  or  to  the  selfish 
assertion  of  property,  — and  that  the  whole  is  not 
yet  told.  Only  altogether,  all  ages,  all  races,  both 
sexes,  can  we  grow  up  in  one  body,  into  the  per- 
1 Phil.  iv.  5. 


MAN  KEVEALED  IN  CHRIST. 


185 


feet  man  ” ; only  a really  catholic  society  can  be  the 
fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all.”^  Thus  we 
doubt  not  that,  when  the  day  comes  which  shall  see 
the  existence  of  really  national  churches  in  India 
and  China  and  Japan,  the  tranquillity  and  inward- 
ness of  the  Hindu,  the  pertinacity  and  patience  of 
the  Chinaman,  the  brightness  and  amiability  of  the 
Japanese,  will  each  in  turn  receive  their  fresh  con- 
secration in  Christ,  and  bring  out  new  and  unsus- 
pected aspects  of  the  Christian  life;  finding  fresh 
resources  in  Him  in  whom  is  ^‘neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  neither  male  nor  female,  barbarian,  Scythian, 
bond  nor  free,  but  Christ  all  in  all.”  ^ 

We  contemplate  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  man,  in 
the  sinlessness,  the  perfection,  the  breadth  of  His 
manhood,  and  in  Him  we  find  the  justification  of 
our  highest  hopes  for  man.  There  is  much  in  human 
nature  to  disgust  us,  to  dishearten,  to  dismay.  ‘‘We 
see  not  our  tokens.”  “There  is  none  that  doeth 
good.”  We  say  in  our  haste,  “All  men  are  liars.” 
“ What  is  man,”  we  cry  out  to  God,  “ that  thou  art 
mindful  of  him,  or  the  son  of  man  that  thou  visitest 
him  ? ” In  very  truth  we  do  not  see  a satisfactory 
manhood  about  us,  nor  do  we  find  it  within  us.  But 
we  see  Jesus,  born,  growing,  living,  dying,  suffering, 
glorified ; and  in  Him  we  find  what  is  both  the  con- 
demnation of  what  we  are,  and  the  assurance  of  what 
we  may  be.  As  Son  of  man,  he  claims  and  exercises 
over  us  a legitimate  authority,  the  authority  of  ac- 
knowledged perfection : as  Son  of  man  He  shows  us 

1 Eph.  iv.  13 ; i.  23.  2 Qal.  iii.  28 ; Col.  iii.  11. 


186  THE  HSrCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


what  human  nature  is  to  be,  individually  and  socially, 
and  supplies  us  with  the  motives  and  the  means  for 
making  the  idea  real.  The  consideration  of  these  func- 
tions of  the  Son  of  man  as  authority,  example,  new 
life,  will  occupy  us  in  the  two  remaining  lectures.  It 
is  enough  for  us  to  recognize  at  this  point  in  how 
large  and  full  a sense  Jesus  Christ  is  really  man, 
made  in  all  points  like  His  brethren,  sin  apart ; and 
to  confess,  with  a full  assurance  of  conviction,  that 
the  clue  to  progress,  social  and  individual,  lies  with 
those,  and  only  those,  who  in  simplest  loyalty,  with 
calmest  deliberation  and  completest  courage,  take 
His  teaching  to  guide  them  and  His  character  to 
mould  them  — ‘‘Looking  unto  Jesus.” 


LECTUEE  VII. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 

All  authority  hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go 
ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them 
into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost:  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I com- 
manded  you : and  lo,  I am  with  you  all  the  days,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.  — St.  Matthew  xxviii.  18. 

There  is  no  subject  more  in  dispute  at  present  in 
religious  circles  than  the  reality,  the  function,  the 
seat,  of  authority  in  religion.  Now  neither  as  to  the 
reality  of  religious  authority  nor  as  to  its  seat  in 
the  first  instance  can  any  Christian  be  in  doubt. 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  summary  authority  in  religion. 
He  is  this  because  He  reveals  God,  as  being  His  very 
image,  and  every  revelation  of  God  must  come  upon 
men  with  authority,  as  from  above  ; He  is  this,  again,, 
because  He  is  perfect  man,  and  therefore  exercises 
over  humanity  the  control  which  is  always  exercised 
by  acknowledged  perfection. 


I. 

Our  Lord’s  method  as  a teacher,  as  it  is  exhibited 
to  us  in  the  Gospels,  is  unmistakably  the  method  of 
authority.  ‘^Verily,”  He  said,  ‘‘I  say  unto  you.’^ 

187 


188  THE  INCAEHATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words 
shall  not  pass  away.”  ‘‘  He  taught  as  one  having 
authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.”  It  is  obvious  to 
contrast  this  method,  in  harmony  as  it  is  with  that  of 
all  God’s  prophets,  with  the  method  of  Greek  teach- 
ers such  as  Socrates  and  Plato. 

Socrates  was  content  to  stimulate  thought  by  ques- 
tions. His  object  was  not  so  much  to  inculcate  a 
positive  system  as  to  make  men  exact  and  critical  in 
their  understanding  and  their  speech.  He  believed, 
strangely  as  it  seems  to  us,  that  right  action  would 
follow  almost  necessarily  on  right  thought.  He  was 
ready  to  go  anywhere  where  the  argument  led  him. 
Plato,  by  a process  now  of  Socratic  criticism,  now  of 
positive  construction,  made  it  his  aim  to  erect  an  edi- 
fice of  life  and  thought  on  a basis  purely  rational ; 
and  appears  to  us  to  have  attained  after  all,  so  far  as 
the  positive  attempt  was  concerned,  such  a very  mod- 
erate measure  of  success. 

God  forbid  that  we  should  depreciate  these  methods. 
When  the  average  carelessness  of  men  in  thought  and 
speech  is  forced  upon  our  notice,  not  least  in  the 
religious  world  of  to-day,  we  are  tempted  to  echo  the 
cry,  Oh,  for  one  hour  of  Socrates  ! ” to  question  our 
teachers  in  public  places  as  to  the  meaning  of  their 
words.  Further,  we  notice  that  when  our  Lord  used 
argument,  it  is  occasionally  in  the  Socratic  manner. 
Once  more,  if  St.  Paul  is  an  inspired  Apostle,  the 
method  of  dialectic  is  certainly  justified  in  Christian 
theology.  We  must  not,  then,  depreciate  the  method 
of  argument,  but  we  must  recognize  that  it  is  not  the 


CHKIST  OUR  MASTER. 


189 


basis  of  the  Christian  system ; it  is  not  the  primary 
method  of  Christianity.  It  will  avail  to  prepare  the 
way  for  religion,  to  formulate  it,  to  defend  it,  to  keep 
it  true  to  type  ; but  it  will  not  establish  it  in  the  first 
instance,  or  propagate  it  in  the  world.  Religion  goes 
out  from  the  lips  of  Christ  and  of  all  who  represent 
Christ  as  a word  of  God,  appealing  to  men  because 
they  believe  in  God  and  have  ears  to  hear ; a word  of 
God  to  be  first  of  all  received  in  faith.  This  is  the 
w’ork  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath 
sent.”  1 

It  is  not,  then,  open  to  question  that  the  Christian 
religion  — whether  as  imparted  by  a teaching  church, 
or  as  contained  in  a volume  of  inspired  writings,  or 
as  presented  in,  what  lies  behind  both  these  subordi- 
nate instruments,  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
— the  Christian  religion  is  an  authoritative  word  of 
God,  and  Christians  are  men  under  authority.  A 
prince,”  says  Bishop  Andrewes,  on  Christmas  day,  as 
he  comments  on  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,^  ‘‘so  is  Jesus 
styled,  ‘ born  ’ and  ‘ given  ’ to  establish  a ‘ govern- 
ment,’ that  none  imagine  they  shall  live  like  liber- 
tines under  Him,  every  man  believe  and  live  as  he 
list.  It  is  Christ  not  Belial  that  is  born  to-day.  He 
bringeth  a government  with  Him ; they  that  be  His 
must  live  in  subjection  under  a government;  else 
neither  in  Child  nor  Son,  in  birth  nor  gift,  have  they 
any  interest.” 

1 St.  John  vi.  29. 

2 Sermons  of  the  Nativity  ^ Serm.  ii.  on  Is.  ix.  6. 


190  THE  INCABNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


II. 

Authority  in  religion  obviously  implies  some  con- 
siderable discipline  of  private  judgment,  that  is,  of 
the  uncontrolled  opinion  or  inclination  of  the  indi- 
vidual. In  part  this  belongs  to  all  reasonable  edu- 
cation, and  ought  not  to  present  any  difficulty  to  us 
in  connection  with  religion.  It  is  not  intended  that 
each  generation  or  each  individual  should  start  afresh 
in  life,  and  exercise  the  unassisted  intellect  or  im- 
agination, de  novo^  on  the  matter  of  human  sensation 
and  experience  and  thought.  The  heritage  of  the 
past,  the  truth  at  which  mankind  has  already  arrived, 
is  to  be  first  of  all  received,  as  a communicated  doc- 
trine which  is  to  mould  the  mind  of  the  generation 
that  is  rising,  and  is  to  be  assimilated  with  the  rever- 
ence due  to  the  testimony  of  the  elders.”  Only  out 
of  such  submission  to  be  taught,  such  subjection  to 
an  external  lesson  to  be  received  and  assimilated,  can 
any  right  originality  have  its  origin.  So  philosophers 
have  been  at  pains  to  assure  us,  from  Plato  and 
Aristotle  down  to  Hegel  and  Goethe. 

And  in  the  things  of  God  authority  has  necessarily 
a more  permanent  place  than  in  the  affairs  of  men. 
In  religion,  even  when  a man  has  got  to  the  level  of 
his  fellow-men  — when  he  has  learnt  what  they  can 
teach  him,  and  as  a spiritual  man  ” is  judged  of 
none  ” — still  at  this  level  he  is  hardly  less  than 
before  under  authority.  For  “ God  is  in  heaven  and 
man  upon  earth,”  man  has  never  discovered  Him 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


191 


aright  or  found  out  His  true  being ; at  every  stage 
man’s  knowledge  of  God  has  come  through  God’s 
disclosure  of  Himself.  Whether  by  the  categorical 
imperative  ” which  appeals  to  the  will  through  the 
conscience,  or  by  the  word  of  God  through  the 
prophet,  or  by  the  mission  of  the  Son,  but  always  by 
the  way  of  revelation  from  above,  has  the  real  knowl- 
edge of  God  been  gained.  Thus  the  oldest  and  the 
wisest  of  men  must  still  remain  in  an  attitude  of  ac- 
ceptance, of  adoration,  of  faith  ; faith  which,  however 
sure  it  is  of  its  rationality  — though  it  cry  through 
the  lips  of  St.  Anselm,  ‘‘  having  begun  by  believing  I 
have  grown  into  understanding,”  — yet  never  ceases 
to  be  faith;  faith  which,  in  the  case  of  a Christian, 
rests  unceasingly  on  the  person  of  Jesus,  the  very 
reason  and  word  of  the  Father. 

Partly  then  because  it  is  an  educational  system, 
partly  because  it  is  a revelation  of  the  most  high 
God,  Christianity  is  authoritative  ; but,  granted  this, 
we  are  only  at  the  beginning  of  our  inquiry,  for 
authority  is  of  different  types.  Broadly  we  may  dis- 
tinguish two,  the  despotic  and  the  fatherly.  The 
aim  of  despotic  authority  is  to  produce  unquestion- 
ing obedience,  at  least  in  that  department  of  life  to 
which  it  applies  — and  it  is  worth  noticing  that  it 
can  be  content  with  part  of  a life  more  easily  than 
parental  authority.  The  aim,  I say,  of  despotic  author- 
ity is  to  produce  in  the  intellect  simple  acceptance, 
and  in  the  conduct  unquestioning  obedience.  It  works 
therefore  through  explicit  commands  and  dogmas, 
which  cannot  in  fact  be  too  explicit,  or  leave  too  little 


192  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

to  the  imagination  and  thought  of  the  subject.  K 
the  end  is  simply  to  produce  obedient  servants,  the 
directions  cannot  be  too  clear  or  too  exact.  But  pa- 
rental authority  works  by  other  means.  Its  end  is  to 
produce  conformity  of  character,  sympathy  of  mind, 
intelligent  co-operation  in  action.  It  is  never  satisfied 
with  blind  obedience.  For  this  very  reason,  it  de- 
lights in  the  stimulus  of  half-disclosures,  in  directions 
which  arrest  attention  and  suggest  inquiry,  but  leave 
much  to  be  done  in  the  mind  of  their  recipients.  For 
education  in  sonship,  it  is  easily  possible  for  informa- 
tion to  be  too  full,  and  directions  too  explicit,  be- 
cause such  fulness  and  explicitness  may  tend  to 
suppress  rather  than  to  stimulate,  and  secure  blind 
obedience  rather  than  co-operation. 

Now  the  authority  of  the  Mosaic  law,  or  rather  of 
those  portions  of  it  which  St.  Paul  treats  as  charac- 
teristic of  the  whole,  is  of  the  despotic  sort.  It  con- 
sists of  directions,  moral  and  ritual,  explicit,  exact, 
calculated  to  secure  scrupulous  obedience  and  that  is 
all.  But  the  higher  authority  of  our  Lord  is  charac- 
terized by  being  more  moderate,  not  in  respect  of  the 
thoroughness  of  the  claim  made,  but  in  the  mode  of 
its  presentation.  The  discipline  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  that  of  the  master,  the  authority  of  the  New 
that  of  the  father.  No  doubt  there  must  always  be 
place  and  occasion  in  Christianity  for  blind  obedience. 
There  are  moments  in  all  lives,  and  not  only  in 
crushed  and  ruined  lives,  when  men  must  be  content 
to  be  slaves  that  they  may  become  sons ; as  there  was 
place  even  in  our  Lord’s  life,  for  the  characteristic 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


19§ 


Old  Testament  virtue  of  eiXa/Seia  : ^ ‘‘  He  was  heard 
for  his  godly  fear.”  But  the  characteristic  note  of 
the  New  Testament  authority  is  that  of  the  father 
over  the  son,  and  for  this  very  reason  it  is  moderate. 
This  moderation  is  noticeable  both  in  its  range  and 
in  its  method. 

We  might  have  imagined  antecedently  that  God’s 
completer  revelation  of  Himself,  which  belongs  to 
the  New  Testament,  would  have  been  characterized 
by  the  wide  area  over  which  it  ranged ; that  there 
would  have  been  a letting  loose  of  the  divine  omni- 
science ; that  the  multitude  of  the  disclosures  would 
have  been  in  proportion  to  the  power  exhibited,  and 
the  benefit  received.  But  the  actual  method  of  the 
Incarnation  contradicts  such  a supposition.  However 
our  Lord’s  silence  is  to  be  interpreted  at  any  rate  it 
did  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  His  Mission  to  reveal 
His  omniscience  by  disclosures  in  the  region  of 
natural  knowledge,  or  His  eternity  by  information 
about  history,  otherwise  inaccessible,  in  the  past  or  in 
the  future.  He  came  neither  to  make  a display  of 
omniscience  nor  to  relieve  us  from  the  effort  of 
acquiring  knowledge.  Moreover,  within  the  spiritual 
region  how  reserved  are  His  communications.  What 
is  given  is  primarily  the  disclosure  of  God’s  mind  and 
will  towards  men.  Even  His  triune  being  is  rather 
overheard,  than  heard  as  a distinct  and  separate 
announcement.  About  the  life  beyond  the  grave, 
while  the  thoughts  of  men  are  rectified,  spiritualized 
and  moralized,  very  little  positive  information  is 

1 See  Trench  Synonyms  of  the  iV.  T.  (7th  ed.  Macmillan,  1871),  p.  164. 


194  THE  INC  AERATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


given.  The  old  metaphors  of  ^‘Abraham’s  bosom,” 
the  unquenchable  fire,”  ‘‘  the  undying  worm,”  the 
names  Hades,  Gehenna,  Heaven,  are  filled  with  new  / 
moral  meaning,  but  supplemented  by  hardly  any  dis- 
closure to  satisfy  the  imagination  or  curiosity.  Once 
again,  however  the  belief  in  good  and  bad  spirits  had 
come  to  take  its  place  in  the  Jewish  creed,  that  belief 
is  accepted  and  used  by  our  Lord  in  positive  teaching 
with  such  explicitness  and  emphasis  that  there  is,  I 
think,  no  room  for  a Christian  to  doubt  — as  why  in 
reason  should  he  doubt?  — that  such  spirits  really 
exist  and  exercise  influence  in  the  life  of  nature  and 
man.  But  again,  how  little  information  is  given.  If, 
as  St.  Paul  says,  we  Christians  who  live  in  the  light 
of  revelation,  yet  see  in  a mirror,  darkly,”  know 
in  part  and  prophesy  in  part  ” — this  is  a direct  conse- 
quence of  the  limits  set  by  the  divine  wisdom  upon 
our  Lord’s  prophetic  office.^ 

The  reserve  which  is  noticeable  in  the  content,  is 
noticeable  also  in  the  method,  of  our  Lord’s  communi- 
cations. One  of  the  most  observant  and  suggestive 
of  recent  writers  about  the  Gospels,  Dr.  Latham,  says, 
‘‘Among  the  great  teachers  of  the  world  there  is 
hardly  one  whose  chosen  pupils  have  received  so  few 
tenets  in  a formulated  shape,  as  those  of  Christ  ” ; ^ 
and  if  Dr.  Martineau  is  exaggerating  when  he  says, 
that  “ The  sublimest  things  which  he  told  the  people 
he  assumed  that  they  in  their  secret  hearts  must 
know  ” ; ^ even  the  exaggeration  is  suggestive  of  the 

1 See  on  the  above  paragraph  app.  note  52. 

2 Pastor  Pastorum,  pp.  271-2.  3 of  Authority ^ p.  322. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


195 


truth.  Obviously  our  Lord  knew  that  revelation 
might  be  too  full,  too  explicit  in  answers  to  ques- 
tions, too  easily  intelligible ; and  that  because  such 
fulness,  explicitness,  and  plainness,  would  not  leave 
men  enough  to  do  for  themselves. 

Our  Lord,  then,  trained  His  disciples  to  do  a great 
deal  for  themselves  in  the  way  of  spiritual  effort  in 
apprehending  truth.  Thus,  when  He  finally  elic- 
ited from  St.  Peter  the  confession  of  His  own  name 

— ‘‘  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  son  of  the  living  God,” 

— He  elicited,  as  the  utterance  of  the  disciple’s  own 
slowly  formed  conviction,  what  He  might  have  dic- 
tated from  outside.  We  have  further  evidence  of  our 
Lord’s  refusal  to  do  too  much  for  His  disciples,  in 
His  use  of  paradoxes.  The  Mosaic  law  says  exactly 
what  it  means,  you  have  only  to  take  it  and  obey  it : 
but  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  sets  a man  thinking ; 
it  perplexes,  it  almost  baffles ; it  is  only  by  patient 
effort  to  appreciate  its  spirit,  that  it  can  be  reduced 
to  practice.  -The  same  is  true  of  the  parables  which 
our  Lord  used  to  teach  the  people.  They  stimulate 
thought,  they  suggest  principles,  they  arrest  the 
attention,  but  they  do  not  give  men  spiritual  infor- 
mation in  the  easiest  and  most  direct  form.  Our 
Lord  then  taught,  and  especially  taught  His  disciples, 
so  as  to  train  their  characters  and  stimulate  their 
intelligences;  he  worked  to  make  them  intelligent 
sons  and  friends,  not  obedient  slaves.  He  would  have 
them  set  ends  above  means,  and  principles  above  ordi- 
nances ; as  when  he  said  that  the  sabbath  was  made 
for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  sabbath.”  And  His 


196  THE  IHCARNATIOH  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

own  ordinances,  such,  as  baptism  and  the  eucharist, 
are  Christian  sacraments  and  not  Jewish  laws  — the 
sacraments  of  sons  and  not  the  ordinances  of  servants 
— because  they  carry  with  them  their  own  justifica- 
tion, because  they  convey  a declared  and  intelligible 
grace.  They  are  obligatory,  but  as  food  is  obliga- 
tory ; for  to  know  their  secret  is  to  desire  their  use, 
as  a son  desires  food  and  fellowship  in  his  father’s 
household. 

There  is  then  an  ideal  of  paternal  authority,  the 
authority  which  exists  to  develop  sonship ; and  this 
is  the  authority  of  Christ.  St.  Augustine  describes 
well  the  character  of  authority  as  thus  conceived, 
when  he  says,  that  authority  is  prior  to  reason  in 
order  of  time,  but  reason  is  prior  to  authority  in 
essence.”  ^ In  other  words,  all  legitimate  authority 
represents  the  higher  reason,  educating  the  develop- 
ment of  the  lower.  Legitimate  religious  authority 
represents  the  reason  of  God,  educating  the  reason 
of  man  and  communicating  itself  to  it.  Now  man  is 
made  in  God’s  image : he  is  in  his  fundamental  capac- 
ity a son  of  God,  and  he  becomes  so  in  fact,  and  fully, 
through  union  with  Christ.  Therefore  in  the  truth 
of  God,  as  Christ  presents  it  to  him,  he  can  recognize 
his  own  better  reason : to  use  Plato’s  beautiful  expres- 
sion, he  can  salute  it  by  force  of  instinct  as  some- 
thing akin  to  himself,  before  he  can  give  intellectual 
account  of  it.^  He  begins  by  accepting  it  on  faith, 
and  in  obedience,  but  the  very  thing  that  he  accepts 
quickens  and  satisfies  his  faculties,  and  he  grows 
1 S.  Aug.  de  ord.  ii.  9 (26).  * Republic ^ 402  A. 


CHEIST  OUR  MASTER. 


19T 


from  faith  to  intuition,  from  love  to  knowledge,  till 
as  the  developed  ‘^spiritual  man”  he  ‘‘judges  all 
things,”  till  by  the  “ unction  of  the  Holy  One  ” he 
“ knows  all  things,”  ^ and  what  was  once  an  external 
“ mould  of  doctrine  ” has  become  the  ineradicable 
conviction  of  his  own  mind. 

We  may  then  characterize  Christian  authority  in 
two  respects ; first,  that  as  a higher  sort  of  reason,  it 
stimulates  and  develops  in  each  of  its  subjects  not 
conscience  only  — though  it  appeals  first  to  con- 
science, and  the  way  of  conversion  is  the  true  begin- 
ning of  enlightenment  — nor  only  the  faculties  of 
obedience  and  worship,  but  also  the  faculty  of  reason 
and  free  judgment.  While  developing  human  reason 
into  the  image  of  the  divine  it  also  frees  it  and  satis- 
fies it  on  its  own  level.  It  is  above  our  reason,  not 
below  it.  Thus,  so  far  as  history  enters  into  the 
things  of  faith,  and  with  history  the  occasion  for 
criticism  and  investigation,  authority  must  be  able 
to  present  its  historical  credentials  in  a shape  which 
corresponds  to  the  requirements  of  reason.  Its  his- 
torical supports  must  be  as  satisfactory  as  historical 
supports  can  be.  It  must  encourage  its  votaries  to 
test  all  things.  It  must  set  no  premium  on  credulity ; 
it  must  make  no  virtue  of  mental  blindness,  as  if  the 
refusal  to  investigate  were  in  any  way  connected 
with  reverence  and  faith.  It  is  the  test  of  Christian- 
ity’s legitimate  tenure,  that  it  can  encourage  free 
inquiry  into  its  title-deeds. 

Secondly,  as  Christian  authority  educates  men  for 
1 1 Cor.  ii.  15  j 1 St.  John  ii.  20. 


198  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

sonship,  so  it  is  not  satisfied  with,  bare  acceptance  of 
dogmas  and  obedience  to  rules.  It  is  not  satisfied 
that  one  or  two  of  the  Christian  community  should 
do  the  positive  work  of  religion  for  the  rest.  It  de- 
sires to  see  the  whole  community  an  organized  body 
in  active  co-operation,  a royal  priesthood  in  conse- 
crated service.  It  is  because  it  thus  desires  to  enlist 
all  men,  and  the  whole  man,  in  positive  service,  that 
the  best  kind  of  authority  refuses  to  do  too  much  for 
men,  refuses  to  be  too  explicit,  too  complete,  too  clear, 
lest  it  should  dwarf  instead  of  stimulating  their 
higher  faculties. 

III. 

At  this  point,  then,  I cannot  but  ask  you  whether 
the  mind  of  the  Church  of  England  does  not  give  a 
very  fair  expression  of  the  Christian  ideal  of  author- 
ity. Our  church  would  have  each  of  its  members 
educated,  through  childhood  and  youth,  in  a cate- 
chism which  contains  the  creed  as  a summary  of  the- 
ology, the  Lord’s  prayer  as  the  type  of  prayer,  the 
ten  commandments  with  their  explanation  as  a rule 
of  duty,  the  teaching  about  the  sacraments  as  a law 
of  church  membership.  This  preliminary  instruction 
would  be  somewhat  supplemented  by  the  services 
intended  for  everybody’s  use.  Here  is  a dogmatic 
basis  for  education,  clear  and  distinct  up  to  a certain 
point,  but  leaving  a great  deal  for  the  individual 
churchman  to  do.  He  is  to  grow  into  a clearer  appre- 
hension of  what  he  has  been  taught  by  familiarity 
with  the  scriptures ; on  points  left  doubtful  in  the 


CHRIST  OXJR  MASTER. 


199 


explicit  formulas  he  is  to  form  his  own  judgment 
with  the  help  of  such  information  as  God  puts  within 
his  reach.  Thus  his  relation  to  Christian  truth  is 
gradually  to  become  that  of  personal  conviction  and 
enlightenment,  not  of  mere  passive  acceptance. 

There  are  some  who  would  destroy  this  ideal  by 
removing  the  basis  of  obligatory  fundamental  dogma. 
This  would  be  equivalent  to  destroying  altogether 
the  ideal  of  a church,  as  a society  based  upon  an 
authoritative  message.  There  are  many  more  who, 
nominally  accepting  the  ideal,  in  fact  ignore  it. 
Perhaps  there  is  no  part  of  the  church  which  has 
sinned  as  the  English  Church  has  sinned,  in  the 
neglect  of  definite  religious  teaching.  Nor  can  one 
who  desires  her  welfare  aim  at  anything  better  than 
the  recovery  and  promotion  of  simple  dogmatic  teach- 
ing, based  on  the  catechism  and  appealing  to  scrip- 
ture, not  least  among  the  youth  of  the  educated  classes. 

Our  ideal,  we  admit,  has  been  grievously  neglected ; 
but  where  it  is  put  in  practice,  with  its  dogmatic 
teaching,  its  scriptural  appeal,  its  encouragement  of 
inquiry,  may  we  not  maintain  that  it  is  truer  to  the 
type  of  our  Lord’s  method  than  a system  which  does 
much  more  by  authoritative  dogma  and  leaves  much 
less  for  the  individual  to  do  for  himself?  It  is 
untrue  to  say  that  such  a system  as  ours  is  inappli- 
cable to  the  poor.  And  in  fact  it  is  not  the  poor  who 
complain  of  Anglicanism  on  the  score  of  indefinite- 
ness. Their  complaints,  expressed  or  unexpressed, 
are  of  a different  sort.  Those  who  resent  the  incom- 
pleteness of  the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  English 


200  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Church,  and  contrast  it  with  the  dogmatic  system  of 
Rome  are  in  fact  men  and  women  whose  opportunities 
of  education  are  much  greater,  but  who  disapprove  that 
so  much  should  be  left  for  them  to  do  for  themselves. 

For  there  is  another  dogmatic  system  with  which 
the  Church  of  Rome  is  identified,  the  ideal  of  which 
is  very  different  from  what  I have  been  describing. 
It  aims  at  being  as  explicit  and  complete  in  dogmatic 
instruction  as  possible.  It  rejoices  simply  in  clear 
and  definite  answers  to  all  questions.  The  perad- 
venture  ” of  an  Augustine  as  to  a purgatory  for  the 
imperfect  after  death  — non  redargue^  he  says,  quia 
forsitan  verum  est  ^ — has  become  a positive  teaching 
about  purgatory,  full  of  exact  information.  This 
system  leaves  the  individual  churchman  simply  to 
accept  what  the  church  teaches,  and  to  practise  what 
the  church  enjoins,  and  so  to  secure  his  everlasting  sal- 
vation. Now  it  is  plain  that  such  a peremptory  and 
complete  system  of  dogma  may  by  its  very  clearness 
and  explicitness  represent  a lower  level  of  discipline 
than  our  Lord  intended  for  His  disciples.  It  is  not 
in  fact  at  all  agreeable  to  the  method  which  He  and 
His  Apostles  actually  pursued,  while  by  its  very  exist' 
ence  it  makes  far  more  difficult  of  execution  the  truer 
ideal,  attracting  men  as  a short  and  easy  method  of 
solving  difficulties,  just  at  the  time  when  perhaps 
they  most  need  the  more  troublesome  discipline. 

But  the  Roman  system  not  only  does  not  encourage 
personal  investigation,  it  positively  discourages  it.  It 
regards  the  free  appeal  to  history  or  scripture  in  ver- 

1 See  app.  note  53. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


201 


ification  of  church  dogmas  as  a mark  of  distrust ; it 
calls  it  rationalism  or  implied  heresy.^  And  that  for 
a plain  reason.  Some  of  the  special  dogmas  of  Rome 
are  below  reason  rather  than  above  it,  at  the  point 
where  the  things  of  faith  come  into  the  area  of  his- 
torical inquiry.  For  the  Roman  Church  is  formally 
tied  to  the  old  catholic  position  that  there  can  be  no 
new  doctrines  in  the  church.  “ First  of  all,”  wrote 
Cardinal  Newman,  many  years  after  he  joined  the 
Roman  Church,  ‘‘  ex  ahundanti  cautela  ” — that  is  as 
something  almost  too  obvious  to  need  stating  — 
every  Catholic  holds  that  the  Christian  dogmas 
were  in  the  church  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  : 
that  they  were  ever  in  their  substance  what  they  are 
now.”  2 But  this  is  exactly  what  is  not  true,  for  in- 
stance, of  the  immaculate  conception  of  the  mother 
of  our  Lord : of  the  treasury  of  merits  to  be  dispensed 
in  indulgences  : of  the  papal  infallibility.  If  there  is 
such  a thing  as  history,  it  bears  unmistakable  witness 
that  those  beliefs  were  not  in  substance  part  of  the 
original  Christian  faith.  Again,  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic celebrates  with  the  dignity  which  belongs  only  to 
the  greatest  festivals  the  assumption  to  heaven  of  the 
body  of  Mary,  but  this  supposed  event  has  nothing 
which  can  be  called  respectable  historical  evidence  to 
support  it.  It  is  thus  because  of  the  substance  of 
some  of  her  dogmas  and  beliefs,  that  the  Roman 
Church  is  by  her  very  principles  forced  to  put  a cer- 
tain premium  upon  credulity ; to  make  the  refusal  to 

1 See  further,  Roman  Catholic  Claims,  pp.  12-14,  53  f. 

2 See  app.  note  54. 


202  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

inquire  a mark  of  reverence,  and  to  pursue  towards 
the  critical  reason  the  same  lines  as  orientalists  of  old 
pursued  toward  the  physical  flesh  — to  cast  it  out  as 
evil. 

I am  not  concerned  here  to  be  controversial,  but 
only  to  maintain  that  the  Anglican  ideal  of  authority 
represents  satisfactorily  enough  the  method  of  our 
Lord,  in  respect  of  that  very  thing  which  is  often 
imputed  to  it  as  an  objection ; namely,  that  it  leaves 
so  much  for  the  individual  to  do  for  himself,  and  lays 
so  much  stress  on  historical  verification,  if  not  by  every 
individual,  at  least  in  the  society  as  a whole.  I may 
add  that  this  ideal  represents  also  the  method  of  the 
early  church.  Certainly,  among  Christians  of  the 
first  four  centuries,  in  the  church  of  Irenaeus  and 
Origen,  in  the  church  represented  by  the  catechetical 
lectures  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  or  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
there  was  a requirement  made  on  the  intelligence 
and  patience  of  the  individual,  at  least  as  great  as 
that  made  by  the  English  Church  even  in  its  present 
condition.  And  it  needs  to  be  remembered,  that  in 
appealing  across  the  ages  to  the  church  of  the  first 
centuries  we  are  not  appealing  merely  to  a church 
which  is  primitive,  but  to  one  which  existed  under 
intellectual  conditions  comparatively  like  our  own. 


IV. 

But  if  such  be  the  character  of  Christian  authority, 
where  does  it  reside  ? 

In  discussing  the  nature  of  the  authority  exercised 


CHRIST  OXJR  MASTER. 


203 


by  Christ,  and  to  be  exercised  in  His  name,  I have 
already  used  words  which  imply  that  that  author- 
ity is  outwardly  represented  to  us  at  the  present 
time  by  two  instrumentalities,  the  church  and  the 
Bible.  The  Christian  is  first  to  be  brought  under 
instruction  by  the  church,  and  then  is  to  deepen, 
develop,  verify,  purge  his  faith  by  the  study  of  scrip- 
ture. This  is  commonly  recognized  as  the  Anglican 
view, — ‘‘the  church  to  teach,  the  Bible  to  prove,”  — 
and  it  is,  I may  say,  unquestionably  the  view  of  the 
ancient  church.^  It  does  not  fall  within  the  scope 
of  this  lecture  to  enlarge  upon  it  or  to  vindicate  it, 
but  I may  endeavour  to  bring  out  some  of  its  meaning 
and  show  its  relation  to  the  authority  of  our  Lord. 

The  Christian  authority  is  simply  Jesus  Christ; 
but  for  the  external  knowledge  of  our  Lord,  the 
knowledge  of  what  He  taught  and  was,  we  are  depend- 
ent, by  His  deliberate  intention,  upon  the  witness  of 
His  Apostles.  Now  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles 
holds  good  for  us  simply  on  its  natural  basis  as  testi- 
mony, because,  as  I have  had  occasion  to  point  out, 
they  were  such  good  witnesses,  morally  and  intellect- 
ually, and  because  we  have  such  strong  grounds  for 
believing  that  their  testimony  remains  to  us  in  the 
New  Testament  narratives.  Nor  do  we  need  anything 
else  than  their  evidence,  fairly  estimated,  to  justify 
our  own  belief  in  J esus  Christ  or  to  suggest  to  others 
the  grounds  for  believing. 

But  when  men  have  once  become  believers  in 
Jesus  Christ,  as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  they  will 
1 See  lect.  iv.  app.  note  26. 


204  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

recognize  in  the  Apostles  something  more  than  wit“ 
nesses,  namely,  witnesses  qualified  for  a unique  func- 
tion by  a special  inspiration.  St.  John  records  how 
in  His  last  discourse  our  Lord  promised  them  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  whom  the  Father  would  send  in  His 
name  should  teach  them  all  things  and  bring  all 
things  to  their  remembrance  whatsoever  He  said  to 
them.  This  special  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  to 
qualify  the  Apostles  as  witnesses  of  Jesus.  He  was 
to  lead  them  into  all  the  truth.  He  was  to  take  of 
what  belonged  to  Jesus,  and  declare  it  to  them.^ 
‘‘This  section  ” in  St.  John’s  Gospel,  says  Dr.  West- 
cott,  “ marks  the  position  of  the  Apostles  with  regard 
to  revelation  as  unique ; and  so  also  by  implication 
the  office  of  the  apostolic  writings  as  a record  of  their 
teaching.”  Christians  believe  then  that  the  Apostles 
were  specially  enlightened  to  present  to  us  without 
distortion  the  person  and  teaching  of  our  Lord,  and 
familiarity  with  their  writings  through  nineteen 
C!hristian  centuries  has  confirmed  the  belief.  We 
^cannot  as  a matter  of  historical  inquiry  go  behind  the 
Apostles,  for  our  Lord  wrote  nothing  Himself ; as  a 
matter  of  faith  we  do  not  need  to  go  behind  it.  In 
the  apostolic  teaching,  then,  we  find  the  ultimate 
court  of  appeal  in  respect  of  “ the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints.”  He  that  heareth  them,  heareth  Him. 

How  then  are  we  to  be  taught  by  the  Apostles  ? 
You  answer,  “ By  reading  the  New  Testament.” 
Undoubtedly,  but  not  primarily.  The  books  of  the 
New  Testament  bear  upon  the  face  of  them  the  evi- 
1 St.  John  xiv.  26  ; xvi.  13, 14,  and  Westcott  in  loo. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


20b 


dence  that  they  were  not  meant  for  primary  instruc- 
tion ; they  were  addressed  to  men  who  were  already 
Christians,  that  is  to  say,  men  who  as  members  of  a 
definite  society,  the  church  or  the  churches,  had 
already  received  oral  instruction.^  It  is  matter  of 
historical  fact  that  the  Christian  teaching  was  not 
first  of  all  written  down,  but  was  originally  committed 
to  a confederation  of  societies  as  a ‘‘  tradition  ” which 
they  were  to  hold,  or,  as  it  was  afterwards  called,  a 
rule  of  faith:  and  ever  since  that  day,  through  all 
vicissitudes,  this  society  or  group  of  societies  has 
been  in  the  world  teaching  the  Christian  creed.  The 
primary  depositary  of  the  Christian  tradition,  then,  is 
the  Christian  Church.  It  has  been  and  it  is,  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.”  ^ 

But  the  tradition  of  a society,  however  powerful 
a factor  it  is  in  human  life,  is  not,  as  every  one 
knows,  trustworthy  unless  it  can  be  checked.  Thus 
the  Christian  tradition,  instead  of  being  miraculously 
exempted  from  the  ordinary  tendencies  of  a tradition, 
was  provided  with  checks,  partly  in  its  own  earlier 
records,  but  especially  in  the  New  Testament.  Thus 
the  New  Testament  is  not  the  primary  instrument  of 
teaching,  but  it  is  the  criterion  of  teaching.  Do 
not  believe  me  simply,”  says  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
speaking  even  to  his  catechumens,  “ unless  you  re- 
ceive the  proof  of  what  I say  from  Holy  Scripture.”  ^ 

This  view  of  the  Christian  Church  as  the  teaching 

1 See  St.  Luke  i.  4;  1 Cor.xi.  23,  xv.  3;  Gal.  i.  6-8 ; Heb.  v.  12 ; James 
i.  19  [R.  V.  ] ; 2 Peter  i.  12,  iii.  1 ; 1 John  ii.  20 ; Jude  3. 

2 1 Tim.  iii.  15.  3 Cyr.  Hieros.  Cat,  iv.  17. 


206  THE  HSrCARKATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

body,  with  the  New  Testament  as  the  constant  cri- 
terion of  its  teaching,  is  a view  which  makes  a power- 
ful appeal  to  our  imagination  and  our  mind.  On  the 
one  hand  there  is  the  great  catholic  society,  intended 
to  exist  among  all  nations  but  to  be  confined  to  none 
and  dependent  upon  none.  This  is  an  incomparable 
instrument  for  maintaining  and  propagating  religion, 
calculated  to  take  hold  of  what  is  richest  and  noblest 
in  human  nature.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  origi- 
nal scriptures  there  is  a safeguard  provided  against 
the  tendency  of  all  religious  traditions  to  deteriora- 
tion and  narrowness.  For  developments  in  propor- 
tion to  their  power  tend  to  become  one-sided;  but 
the  Catholic  faith  is  not  meant  to  become  one-sided 
or  narrowed  as  it  passes  down  the  ages.  Here  then 
should  come  in  the  counteracting  force  of  scripture. 
As  there  is  to  be  a perpetual  development  out  of  the 
apostolic  teaching  in  response  to  new  requirements, 
so  there  is  to  be  a perpetual  return  upon  it,  a perpet- 
ual reversion  to  type.  The  familiarity  of  all  Chris- 
tians with  the  apostolic  pattern  — the  original  and 
inspired  type  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  the  record  of 
our  Lord’s  life  — is  meant  to  prevent  either  the 
stereotyping  of  one-sided  traditions  or  the  erection  of 
current  opinions  into  articles  of  faith.  The  church 
is  perpetually  to  teach ; the  New  Testament  is  per- 
petually to  prove,  to  verify,  to  correct  the  teaching. 
This  is  the  ideal.  It  is  an  ideal  which,  sadly  enough 
we  admit,  cannot  be  applied  by  us  to-day  in  its  per- 
fection. The  divisions  of  Christendom  on  the  one 
side,  and  on  the  other  side  the  habitual  neglect  of 


CHEIST  OUE  MASTEE. 


20T 


scripture  as  a criterion  of  doctrine  in  many  parts  of 
the  church  and  at  many  periods  of  her  history,  have 
marred  the  presentation  of  Christian  authority  in 
the  world.  But  in  spite  of  hindrances,  both  elements 
in  the  authority  are  still  real.  Every  one  of  us  can 
put  himself  to  school  with  the  church’s  creed  and  tra- 
ditional teaching,  more  or  less  perfectly  according  to 
his  opportunities  and  means  of  education ; and  gain- 
ing thus  what  Athanasius  calls  his  point  of  view,” 
he  can  go,  in  the  mind  of  the  catholic  society,  to  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament,  and  so  grow  into  the 
more  perfect  knowledge  of  Him  in  whom  are  hid 
all  the  treasures  of  wisdom.” 


V. 

Both  the  New  Testament  and  the  church  represent 
to  us  in  different  ways  that  original  authority  with 
which  our  Lord  endued  His  Apostles.  ‘‘  All  author- 
ity hath  been  given  unto  me.”  He  said  to  them, 
‘‘  Go  ye  therefore  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I commanded  you ; 
and  lo,  I am  with  you  all  the  days.”  In  this  and 
parallel  commissions  lie  the  title-deeds  of  the  author- 
ity both  of  the  church  and  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  there  is  another  part  of  the  Bible,  namely  the 
Old  Testament,  which  already  existed  in  our  Lord’s 
day,  and  which  He  is  found  to  have  treated  as  already 
possessing  divine  authority. 


208  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Our  Lord  primarily  used  the  Old  Testament  as 
God’s  word  to  the  Jews.  Thus  He  brings  out  its 
witness  against  Sadducean  rationalism.  “ Ye  do 
err,  not  knowing  the  scriptures  nor  the  power  of 
God.”  ^ He  brings  out  its  witness,  again,  against 
the  spurious  orthodoxy  and  false  expectations  of  the 
Pharisees. 

‘‘  The  Psalms  of  Solomon,”  which  appear  to  be  the 
work  of  a Pharisee,  writing  some  fifty  years  before 
our  Lord’s  birth,  give  us  probably  a good  idea  of  the 
Messianic  expectation  which  was  held  by  the  religious 
world  of  our  Lord’s  day.  If  the  picture  of  the  Mes- 
siah, given  in  these  psalms,  is  compared  with  the 
ideal  of  the  canonical  books,  especially  of  Isaiah,  it  is 
found  to  have  lost  two  important  elements.  First,  it 
has  lost  the  divine  element.  The  Messiah  is  David’s 
son,  and  apparently  he  is  nothing  more.  We  are 
never  reminded  of  the  ‘‘  Wonderful  counsellor, 
Mighty  God,  Everlasting  Father,”  of  the  first  part 
of  Isaiah.  Secondly,  the  idea  of  the  second  part  of 
Isaiah,  the  idea  of  the  suffering  servant  of  Jehovah 
redeeming  God’s  people  through  his  sacrifice,  has 
altogether  vanished  and  left  no  trace.  There  is  no 
other  image  presented  than  that  of  the  victorious 
king  who  shall  expel  the  Koman  intruders  and  over- 
throw the  Sadducean  sinners.^  From  this  lower 
, ideal  then,  which  had  its  hold  not  only  on  His  oppo- 
nents, but  also  on  His  disciples,  our  Lord  makes  His 

1 St.  Matt.  xxii.  29. 

2 See  Ryle  and  James,  The  Psalms  of  Solomon  (Camb.,  1891),  pp. 
Jii-lix. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


20& 


appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  with  their 
witness  to  a higher  righteousness,  to  a diviner  king, 
to  a suffering  redeemer.  Ought  not  the  Christ  to 
have  suffered  these  things  and  to  enter  into  his 
glory?  And  beginning  from  Moses  and  from  all 
the  prophets,  he  interpreted  to  them  in  all  the  scrip- 
tures the  things  concerning  himself.”  ^ 

Thus  if  our  Lord  claimed  to  supersede,  he  claimed 
also  in  the  fullest  sense  to  fulfil,  the  Old  Testament 
ideal.  Ye  search  the  scriptures,”  He  said,  ‘‘  be- 
cause ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life ' and 
these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me.”  ^ That 
our  Lord  thus  recognized  in  the  Old  Testament  a 
special  authority  and  inspiration  there  can  be  no 
doubt.  He  contrasts  the  law,  as  the  word  of  God,” 
with  the  traditions  and  commandments  of  men.  He 
declares  that  no  jot  or  tittle  of  it  is  to  pass  away 
unaccomplished.^  Again,  the  revelation  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  recognized  in  all  the  chief  stages  of  its 
development,  the  original  revelation  of  man’s  creation^ 
the  revelation  to  Abraham,  the  giving  of  the  law  by 
Moses,  the  teaching  of  prophets  and  of  psalmists^ 
All  is  regarded  as  the  divine  preparation  for  Himself^ 
“Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day”: 
“ Moses  wrote  of  me  ” : “ these  are  the  words  which 
I spake  unto  you,  while  I was  yet  with  you,  how  that 
all  things  must  needs  be  fulfilled  which  are  written 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  the  prophets  and  the  psalms, 
concerning  me.  Then  opened  he  their  mind  that 

1 St.  Luke  xxiv.  26,  27.  2 gt.  John  v.  39. 

3 St.  Mark  vii.  13;  St.  Matt.  v.  18. 


210  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

they  might  understand  the  scriptures.”^  His  own 
language  is  full  of  Old  Testament  allusions.  In  His 
temptation,  in  His  prophecy  of  the  last  things,  on  the 
cross.  He  appropriates  again  and  again  the  language 
of  righteous  Israel.  He  declares  that  the  messianic 
forecast  must  be  fulfilled  in  Himself.  How  then,” 
He  asks,  should  the  scripture  be  fulfilled  that  thus 
it  must  be?”  ^ At  least  on  one  occasion  He  is  believed 
by  the  evangelist  to  have  deliberately  acted  so  as  to 
fulfil  a detail  in  the  picture  given  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.^ 

I have  said  that  our  Lord  used  the  Old  Testament 
primarily  as  God’s  word  to  the  Jews,  so  that  he 
regards  its  primary  function  as  ended  with  the  fulfill- 
ing of  Israel’s  vocation.  The  law  and  the  prophets 
were  until  John:  from  that  time  the  gospel  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  preached.”  ^ But  the  function  of 
the  older  scriptures  was  not  exhausted  towards  the 
Jews.  The  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  still  commends 
them  to  us  as  given  by  inspiration  of  God  ” and 
“ written  for  our  admonition  upon  whom  the  ends  of 
the  world  are  come.”^  For  us  they  stand  not  as 
adding  anything  to  what  is  revealed  in  Christ,  but, 
in  part,  as  giving  in  adequate  perfection  some  ele- 
ments of  the  perfect  religion  — as  the  psalms  express 
for  ever  the  relation  of  the  soul  to  God,  and  the 
prophets,  the  eternal  principles  in  the  divine  govern- 
ment of  the  world — in  part,  as  showing  us  the  stages 

1 St.  Matt.  xix.  4-8;  St.  John  viii.  56,  v.  46 ; St.  Luke  xxiv.  44,  45. 

2 St.  Matt.  xxvi.  54.  3 gt.  John  xix.  28. 

4 St.  Luke  xvi.  16 ; St.  Matt.  xi.  13. 

6 2 Tim.  iii.  16 ; 1 Cor.  x.  11 ; cf . Rom.  xv.  4. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


211 


and  elements  through  which  and  out  of  which  the 
complete  fabric  of  divine  truth  was  reared.  Nor  do 
I think  that  any  one  who  starts  from  the  platform  of 
belief  in  Christ  can  fail  to  see  in  the  Old  Testament 
a special  action  of  divine  inspiration,  a divine  move- 
ment towards  the  Incarnation,  a divine  preparation 
for  the  Christ. 

But  it  has  been  usual  to  go  beyond  this,  and  to 
assert  that  the  authority  of  our  Lord  binds  us  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  Jewish  tradition  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  and  literary  character  of  different  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament — for  example,  that  the  use  by 
our  Lord  of  such  a phrase  as  ‘‘  Moses  wrote  of  me  ” 
binds  us  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch 
as  a whole,  and  that  His  reference  to  the  flood,  or  to 
Jonah’s  three  days’  entombment  in  the  fish’s  belly, 
binds  us  to  receive  these  narratives  as  simple  history. 
To  this  argument  I do  not  think  that  we  need  yield.^ 
The  lessons  inculcated  by  our  Lord  can  be  shown  to 
inhere  in  the  narratives  even  if  we  cannot  be  sure  of 
their  exact  authorship  or  literary  character.  That 
special  assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  we  call 
inspiration,  may  have  been  given  to  a Jewish  writer 
in  any  literary  undertaking  which  the  conscience  of 
his  age  would  have  approved,  as  His  assistance  cer- 
tainly was  given  to  Jewish  agents  in  imperfect  forms 
of  moral  action:  and  what  the  divine  Spirit  could 
inspire,  Jesus,  in  that  same  Spirit,  could  recognize 
and  use.  Further,  He  must  have  alluded  to  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  by  their  recognized 

1 See  further,  Lux  Mundiy  Pref.  to  10th  ed.,  pp.  xix. 


212  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

names, — the  names  by  which  men  always  will  refer 
to  them  when  they  are  speaking  ordinary  human 
language ; just  as  men  will  always  speak  of  the 
poetry  of  Homer  even  if  the  composite  origin  of  the 
Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  comes  to  be  universally  recog- 
nized. 

There  is  however  one  reference  by  our  Lord  to  the 
Old  Testament  which  raises  a special  difficulty,  and 
about  this  I propose  to  say  something  in  detail, 
because  of  the  important  lesson  which  seems  to 
emerge  out  of  it:  — the  argument  from  Psalm  cx. 
To  show  the  Pharisees  the  inadequacy  of  the  idea  of 
the  Messiah  as  ‘‘  the  son  of  David,”  our  Lord  argues 
with  them  on  the  assumption  of  the  Davidic  author- 
ship of  this  psalm.  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord.” 
Now  if  the  inspired  David  himself  calls  the  Messiah 
“ Lord,”  how  can  it  be  right  to  describe  him  as  his 
son  ? ^ This  argument  certainly  in  some  sense  de- 
pends upon  David’s  personal  authorship.  Well  then, 
it  is  urged,  can  it  be  reverent  to  hesitate  in  accepting 
this  on  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  when  all  you 
have  to  set  against  it  is  a literary  probability  ? Let 
it  be  said  at  once  that  we  could  not,  consistently 
with  faith,  hesitate  to  accept  anything  on  any  sub- 
ject that  our  Lord  meant  to  teach  us.  But  on  the 
one  hand  there  are  reasons  which  draw  us  back  from 
accepting  the  conclusion  that  He  did  in  fact  mean  to 
teach  us  the  authorship  of  a psalm ; and  on  the  other 
hand  there  is  another  reasonable  and  indeed  illu- 
minating interpretation  to  be  given  to  His  words. 

1 St.  Mark  xii.  35-37.  See  app.  note  55. 


CHRIST  OUR  MASTER. 


213 


On  the  one  hand,  then,  an  increasing  number  of 
Old  Testament  students  find  the  J ewish  tradition  by 
itself  a quite  inadequate  ground  on  which  to  assign 
any  writing  to  a particular  date  and  author;  while 
this  psalm,  judged  by  itself  as  a piece  of  literature, 
presents  all  the  appearance  of  being  not  written  by 
a king,  but,  like  the  45th,  a psalm  in  which  a king  is 
addressed,  under  the  customary  title  of  ‘‘  my  lord.’^ 
There  is  therefore  no  reason  for  assigning  this  psalm 
to  king  David  as  its  author,  unless  we  suppose  that 
our  Lord  interposes  to  support,  with  an  infallible 
guarantee,  the  Jewish  tradition.  But  such  an  inter- 
position would  be  a unique  phenomenon  in  His  reve- 
lation. And  if  we  do  not  ourselves  feel  any  difficulty 
about  the  matter,  it  is  surely  right  that  we  should  be 
very  loth  to  ask  men,  who  do  feel  the  difficulty,  to 
accept  as  matter  of  revelation,  what  seems  to  them 
an  improbable  literary  theory.  Such  a demand  lays 
a heavy  burden  on  consciences  specially  sensitive  to 
the  claims  of  truth.  There  are  critical  positions  in 
regard  to  New  Testament  books  which  are  intimately 
bound  up  with  our  Christian  faith,  but  they  stand 
upon  their  own  critical  merits.  They  are  matters  of 
evidence,  not  of  faith. 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  an  interpretation  — I 
think,  a natural  interpretation  — of  our  Lord’s  words 
which  involves  no  difficulty  of  the  kind  we  have 
been  considering. 

Whenever  our  Lord  teaches,  it  is  with  plenary 
authority.  “ He  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh  the 
words  of  God.”  But  at  times  He  does  something 


214  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

besides  teaching,  He  asks  men  questions  such  as  will 
lead  them  to  examine  themselves  closely  in  the  light 
of  their  own  principles.  It  is  not  difficult  to  select 
examples:  I by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,”  he 

challenges  the  Jews,  “ by  whom  do  your  sons  cast 
them  out?”^  Here  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  that 
any  positive  truth  is  being  taught  as  to  Jewish  exor- 
cisms, but  an  appeal  is  made  to  our  Lord’s  adversa- 
ries to  be  fair  and  just  in  view  of  their  ordinary 
assumptions.  Again,  ‘‘Why  callest  thou  me  good? 
there  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is  God.”^  Our 
Lord  is  not  here  really  disclaiming,  as  He  appears  to 
disclaim,  identity  in  moral  goodness  with  God,  but 
He  is  leading  a young  man  to  cross-question  himself 
as  to  the  meaning  of  his  words,  to  ask  himself  what 
reason  he  had  to  address  our  Lord  with  a title  of 
deference.  It  is  probable  that  our  Lord  was  using  a 
similar  method  in  His  appeal  to  the  Jews  about 
Psalm  cx.  On  the  face  of  it,  the  argument  suggests 
that  the  Messiah  could  not  be  David’s  son,  — “if 
David  calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son  ? ” — but 
in  fact  its  purpose  is  not  to  prove  or  disprove  any- 
thing, to  affirm  or  to  deny  anything,  but  simply  to 
press  upon  the  Pharisees  an  argument  which  their 
habitual  assumptions  ought  to  have  suggested  to 
them:  to  confront  them  with  just  that  question, 
which  they,  with  their  principles,  ought  to  have  been 
asking  themselves. 

It  is  easier  to  conceive  of  our  Lord  using  this  sort 
of  argument,  if  we  accept  the  position  maintained  in 
1 St.  Matt.  xii.  27. 


2 St.  Mark  x.  18. 


CHKIST  OUR  MASTER. 


215 


the  last  lecture  — that  He,  the  very  God,  habitually 
spoke,  in  His  incarnate  life  on  earth,  under  the  limi- 
tations of  a properly  human  consciousness.  Though 
speaking  habitually  under  such  limitations,  our  Lord 
never  yielded  Himself  up  to  fallible  human  reason- 
ings. As  He  taught  only  the  divine  word,  so  only 
upon  that  did  He  repose.  He  knew  that  human  rea- 
soning could  never  generate  religious  certitude.  He 
let  Peter  know  that  “flesh  and  blood”  had  not 
revealed  to  him  the  truth  about  Himself,  but  His 
Father  in  heaven.  And  Peter  learnt  the  lesson. 
Many  years  later  he  wrote,  “ If  any  man  speak,” 
that  is  as  a religious  teacher,  “ let  it  be  as  speaking 
oracles  of  God.”  ^ But  though  human  reasonings 
cannot  attain  the  highest  certitude,  they  have  yet  a 
great  function  in  human  life,  and  high  responsibilities 
are  attached  to  them.  Thus  though  our  Lord  lives 
as  man  and  as  teacher  in  the  higher  region  of  the 
divine  word,  He  still  can  stimulate  and  take  an 
interest  in  the  “reasonings  of  men.”  He  can  feel 
indignation  at  wrong  arguments,  and  careless  thought, 
and  shallow  self-deception. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  got  here  to  a 
very  important  principle:  that,  if  I am  interpreting 
rightly  our  Lord’s  argument  with  the  Pharisees,  it 
shows  us  the  Son  of  man  fulfilling  an  important 
function  towards  human  life,  which  we  have  been 
inclined  to  overlook. 

The  critical  and  argumentative  methods  of  men 
change  considerably  from  age  to  age,  from  nation  to 
1 1 St.  Peter  iv.  11. 


216  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

nation.  Consequently  they  cannot  form  part  of  the 
substance  of  a catholic  religion.  Christian  apolo- 
getics have  never  the  permanence  of  the  universality 
of  the  creeds.  But  criticism  and  argument  have 
their  value  in  relation  to  divine  truth,  and  their 
responsibilities.  Our  Lord  then  does  not  bring  to 
bear  on  men’s  intellectual  equipment  in  any  genera- 
tion the  divine  omniscience  so  as  to  crush  it,  any 
more  than  He  did  upon  the  Pharisees.  But  He  does 
bring  to  bear  upon  it  the  moral  claim  that  it  should 
be  used  rightly,  honestly,  and  impartially.  He  does 
teach  us,  by  His  question  to  the  Pharisees,  that  He 
expects  of  us  all  that  Socrates  expected  of  his  con- 
temporaries, while  He  supplies  us  with  a great  deal 
more  than  Socrates  could  ever  supply. 

For  our  Lord  does  not  only,  or  chiefly,  question. 
He  teaches  with  infallible  certainty  the  words  of 
God,  which  redeem  and  strengthen,  illuminate  and 
satisfy,  human  life. 

We  all  remember  the  pathetic  words  of  Simmias  in 
the  argument  with  Socrates  about  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.  ‘‘1  dare  say,”  he  says,  ^‘that  you,  Socrates, 
feel  as  I do  how  very  hard  and  almost  impossible  is 
the  attainment  of  any  certainty  about  questions  such 
as  these  in  the  present  life.  And  yet  I should  deem 
him  a coward  who  did  not  prove  what  is  said  about 
them  to  the  uttermost,  or  whose  heart  failed  him 
before  he  had  examined  them  on  every  side.  For  he 
should  persevere  until  he  has  attained  one  of  two 
things : either  he  should  discover  or  learn  the  truth 
about  them;  or  if  this  is  impossible  I would  have 


CHRIST  OTJR  MASTER. 


21T 


him  take  the  best  and  most  irrefragable  of  human 
notions,  and  let  this  be  the  raft  upon  which  he  sails 
through  life  — not  without  risk,  as  I admit,  if  he  cannot 
find  some  word  of  God  which  will  more  surely  and 
safely  carry  him.”  ^ Some  word  of  God  ” : it  has  come 
to  us  : crowning  the  legitimate  efforts,  supplying  the 
inevitable  deficiencies,  of  human  reasonings ; satis- 
fying all  the  deepest  aspirations  of  the  heart  and 
conscience.  It  has  come  to  us,  and  not  as  a mere 
spoken  message,  but  as  an  incarnate  person,  at  first 
to  attract,  to  alarm,  to  subdue  us ; afterwards,  when 
we  are  His  servants,  to  guide,  to  discipline,  to  en- 
lighten, to  enrich  us,  till  that  which  is  perfect  is 
come,  and  that  which  is  in  part  has  been  done  away. 

In  this  generation  very  many  of  us  feel,  like  Sim- 
mias,  the  unsatisfactoriness  of  human  reasonings,  when 
we  are  not  sure  of  the  faith.  We  feel  their  unsatis- 
factoriness, even  while  we  make  it  our  custom  — 

With  others  whom  a like  disquietude 
At  the  like  crisis  of  their  lives  now  keeps 
Kestless,  with  them  to  question  to  and  fro 
And  to  debate  the  evil  of  the  world, 

As  though  we  bore  no  portion  of  that  ill, 

As  though  with  subtle  phrases  we  could  spin 
A woof  to  screen  us  from  life's  undelight : 

Sometimes  prolonging  far  into  the  night 
Such  talk,  as  loth  to  separate,  and  find 
Each  in  his  solitude  how  vain  are  words, 

W’hen  that  which  is  opposed  to  them  is  more.” 

Through  such  a frame  of  mind  — if  we  are  sincerely 
honest  in  our  reasonings,  if  we  anxiously  rid  ourselves 

1 Plato,  Phaedo  85  C,  D. 


218  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

of  vanity,  if  morally  we  hold  fast  to  Jesus  Christ,  — 
through  such  a frame  of  mind  we  may  hope  to  pass 
to  the  recognition  of  the  divine  Word,  coming  down 
upon  our  manhood,  to  rebuke  and  to  satisfy  it,  — to 
crown  its  fallible  reasonings.  Lord,”  we  shall  cry, 
‘‘to  whom  shall  we  go?  Thou  hast  the  words  of 
eternal  life.” 


LECTUEE  VIII. 

CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIRE. 


God  was  pleased  to  make  known  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glory  of 
this  mystery  among  the  Gentiles^  which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope 
of  glory : whom  we  proclaim,  admonishing  every  man  and  teach- 
ing every  man  in  all  wisdom,  that  we  may  present  every  man  per- 
fect in  Christ.  — Colossians  i.  27,  28. 


I. 

Our  Lord,  as  Son  of  man,  set  the  standard  of 
human  life ; but  He  did  this  by  exhibiting  a specific 
moral  character,  a character  involving  certain  moral 
principles,  rather  than  by  the  enunciation  of  rules  of 
conduct.  What  detailed  rules  of  conduct  He  did  lay 
down,  have  to  be  interpreted  in  their  principle  rather 
than  in  their  letter.  Thus  after  washing  His  disci- 
ples’ feet  and  wiping  them  with  the  towel.  He  bade 
His  disciples  do  as  He  had  done : for  if  He,  their 
Lord  and  Master,  had  washed  their  feet,  they  ought 
also  to  wash  one  another’s  feet.^  But  we  should 
rightly  feel  that  an  exact  fulfilment  of  this  precept 
— such  as  finds  a place  in  the  ritual  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  on  Maundy  Thursday  — if  it  has 
in  certain  states  of  society  a considerable  symbolical 
1 St.  John  xiii.  12-15. 


219 


220  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

value,  yet  goes  a very  little  way  in  real  obedience  to 
our  Lord’s  command.  It  need  not  involve  practically 
anything  of  that  spirit  of  humility  and  willing  ser- 
vice which  is  what  our  Lord  was  intending  to  incul- 
cate. 

The  rules  of  life  then  which  our  Lord  lays  down 
must  not  be  merely  obeyed  in  the  letter:  the  mean- 
ing or  principle  which  lies  behind  them  has  to  be 
grasped  and  reapplied  in  each  fresh  set  of  circum- 
stances. It  is  because  our  Lord  thus  puts  principles 
above  rules,  and  the  spirit  of  life  above  its  practices, 
that  the  example  which  He  sets  is  a universal  exam- 
ple, and  His  teaching  is  valid  for  all  time  and  in  all 
states  of  society.  But  there  is  a great  danger  which 
attaches  to  this  highest  sort  of  obedience  — obedience, 
as  we  call  it,  by  a very  familiar  misapplication  of  a 
phrase  of  St.  Paul’s,  “ in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the 
letter.”  ^ The  danger  is  that  the  spirit  of  a precept 
shall  be  taken  to  mean  something  vague  and  unex- 
acting. It  was  not  surely  without  a purpose  that  our 
Lord  gave  His  injunctions  so  detailed  and  definite  a 
form.  He  meant  that  the  moral  principle  is  to  be 
translated  into  outward  action  just  in  those  details 
of  life  where  it  becomes  exacting.  To  apply  a pre- 
cept under  changed  circumstances — for  example,  the 
precept  as  to  washing  one  another’s  feet  — ought  not 
to  mean  to  give  it  an  application  less  public,  less  act- 
ual, less  troublesome  than  its  original  application. 
For  the  publicity,  the  definiteness,  the  troublesome- 
ness, belong  to  the  principle  of  the  action.  They 
1 See.  app.  note  56. 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  221 


contribute  to  its  moral  value.  Yet  in  fact,  what  has 
been  called  obedience  to  ‘‘  the  spirit  of  our  Lord’s 
words,”  has  sadly  often  meant  no  obedience  at  all : 
so  that  generations  of  Christians  have  lived  as  if  He 
never  said  to  His  disciples  generally,  ‘‘If  any  man 
would  go  to  law  with  thee,  and  take  away  thy  coat, 
let  him  have  thy  cloke  also  ” ; or  “ It  is  easier  for  a 
camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a needle,  than  for 
a rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ” ; or  to 
one,  “ If  thou  wouldst  be  perfect,  go,  sell  that  thou 
hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treas- 
ure in  heaven : and  come  follow  me  ” ; or  to  some, 
“ There  are  eunuchs  which  made  themselves  eunuchs 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven’s  sake.  He  that  is  able  to 
receive  it  let  him  receive  it.”  ^ 

It  is  in  fact  the  spirit  and  principle  of  our  Lord’s 
life  and  words,  and  not  merely  a particular  applica- 
tion of  them,  which  lays  upon  us  so  exacting  a claim. 
Let  any  one  who  would  be  a sincere  disciple  contem- 
plate steadily  the  moral  character  expressed  in  the 
words  of  Jesus  Christ  and  exhibited  in  His  actions, 
and  though  he  cannot  but  be  attracted  by  Him  who 
spake  as  never  man  spake,  he  needs  must  also  be  filled 
with  a great  dread,  on  account  of  the  tremendous 
standard  which  is  there  before  him.  Let  me  ask  you 
to  have  the  courage  and  the  faith  to  pursue  with  me 
for  a while  the  line  of  thought  here  opened  out  to  us. 

For  instance,  the  whole  life  of  Jesus  Christ  was  one 
continuous  act  of  obedience.  It  was,  “ Lo  I come  to 
do  thy  will,  O God.”  But  such  persistent  and  genu- 

1 St.  Matt.  V.  40,  xix.  24,  21,  12. 


222  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

ine  obedience  to  God  occupies  but  a very  little  part 
of  most  human  lives.  We  men,  and  more  particu- 
larly we  Englishmen,  have  transferred  the  virtue  of 
independence  out  of  its  proper  region  — the  region 
of  human  opinion,  where  it  has  legitimate  exercise  — 
into  that  region  where  it  is  simply  the  principle  of  all 
sin,  the  region  of  our  relation  to  God.  We  keep  God 
at  arm’s  length ; we  let  religion  be  an  occasional  re- 
straint on  conduct,  rather  than  its  constant  and  dom- 
inant motive.  But  we  look  to  Jesus ; and  in  Him, 
the  Son  of  man,  we  see  a manhood  which  was  never 
allowed  to  retain  the  initiative  to  action  within  it- 
self, but  found  its  perfection,  its  liberty,  its  glory,  in 
obedience  and  in  obedience  only,  so  that  each  opening 
sphere  of  life  was  only  one  new  scene  in  which  to 
learn  more  of  what  it  meant  to  obey.  He  learned 
obedience  ” ; He  was  obedient  unto  death.”  Set 
then  the  standard  of  our  Lord’s  life  in  this  respect, 
over  against  our  current  ideas  of  human  independ- 
ence, and,  I say,  it  makes  us  tremble.  It  is  easy  to 
deepen  this  impression.  We  may  go  on  to  contrast 
the  self-restraint  of  the  Son  of  man  — in  whom  no 
human  passion  or  appetite  was  allowed  to  act,  except 
under  the  control  of  the  will,  which  in  its  turn  waited 
unintermittently  upon  the  movement  of  the  Spirit  — 
with  our  habitual  glorification  of  what  is  merely  im- 
pulsive and  undisciplined  in  word  and  action.  Or  we 
may  think  of  those  thirty  years  of  silent  preparation 
for  the  divine  work,  by  the  side  of  our  careless  and 
rapid  acceptance  of  the  highest  and  holiest  trusts,  our 
light-hearted  confidence  in  improvised  solutions  of 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIEE.  223 

unconsidered  difficulties.  Side  by  side  with  our 
shrinking  from  pain,  passing  as  it  too  often  does 
from  a legitimate  instinct  into  an  allowed  habit  of 
self-indulgence,  we  may  set  His  considerate  bearing 
of  the  burdens  of  others.  His  willing  acceptance  of 
pain.  Side  by  side  with  our  pride  we  may  set  His 
meekness ; by  our  selfishness,  careless  or  calculating. 
His  calculated  and  deliberate  self-sacrifice.  Ecce 
homo  ! we  cry.  But  truly  if  this  is  the  Son  of  man, 
if  this  manhood  is  the  only  satisfactory  manhood,  if 
by  this  man  God  will  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness,” ^ we  have,  most  of  us,  not  appreciated  at  all 
adequately  the  amount  of  deliberate  self-discipline 
and  inward  recreation,  which  must  be  necessary  to 
bridge  the  gulf  between  what  we  are  and  what  we 
are  to  be. 

H. 

But  as  soon  as  we  deliberately  contemplate  the 
moral  standard  which  Jesus  Christ  sets  up  for  human 
life,  the  thought  is  sure  to  rise  in  our  minds : is  it 
possible  that  a standard  of  devotion,  of  purity,  of 
thoughtfulness,  of  sacrifice  such  as  this,  can  appeal 
to  any  but  a few  men  or  women  in  any  society  or  any 
age?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  not  a simple 
one.  We  know  that  on  the  whole,  and  in  the  long 
run,  nothing  does  appeal  to  every  man’s  conscience 
like  the  life  and  teaching  of  a thorough  Christian,  and 
nothing  does  exercise  so  permanent  or  widespreading 
an  influence.  But  so  far  as  it  is  true  that  the  Chris- 


1 Acts  xyii.  31. 


224  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

tian  standard,  on  account  of  its  very  loftiness,  appeals 
only  to  the  few,  the  most  earnest,  men,  the  contin- 
gency is  one  which  Jesus  Christ  beyond  all  question 
had  steadily  in  view.  Narrow  is  the  gate  and 
straitened  is  the  way,”  He  said,  ‘Hhat  leadeth  unto 
life,  and  few  be  they  that  are  finding  it.” 

The  standard  of  Mohammedanism,  by  contrast  to 
Christianity,  may  be  described  as  a standard  deliber- 
ately adapted  to  the  average  moral  level  of  the  men 
to  whom  it  was  meant  to  appeal.  If  one  had  to 
express  in  a short  compass,”  says  a very  discerning 
writer,^  ‘‘  the  character  of  its  remarkable  founder  as 
a teacher,  it  would  be  that  that  great  man  had  no 
faith  in  human  nature.  There  are  two  things  which 
he  thought  man  could  do  and  would  do  for  the  glory 
of  God,  transact  religious  forms  and  fight ; and  upon 
these  two  points  he  was  severe ; but  within  the 
sphere  of  common  practical  life,  where  man’s  great 
trial  lies,  his  code  exhibits  the  disdainful  laxity  of  a 
legislator,  who  accommodates  his  rule  to  the  recipient, 
and  shows  his  estimate  of  the  recipient  by  the  accom- 
modation which  he  adopts.  . . . The  writer  of  the 
Koran  does  indeed,  if  any  discerner  of  hearts  ever 
did,  take  the  measure  of  mankind  ” : that  is,  the 
measure  of  men,  on  the  average,  whom  he  came  in 
contact  with,  and  he  legislates  accordingly.  ‘‘Hu- 
man nature  is  weak,”  he  said. 

It  is  this  spirit  of  moral  accommodation  which  has 
made  Mohammedanism  at  once  so  successful  among 
its  votaries,  in  securing  conformity  to  its  rules  and 
1 Mozley  On  Miracles  (Longmans,  3rd  ed.  1872) , pp.  140-1. 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  225 


also  SO  destitute  of  really  progressive  power.  The 
method  of  Christ  is  in  striking  opposition.  He, 
before  Mohammed,  said,  The  flesh  is  weak  ” ; but 
from  the  starting-point  of  this  acknowledgment  He 
proceeds  by  a quite  different  path.  No  book  exhibits 
so  profound  a contempt  for  majorities,  so  startling  a 
refusal  to  consider  the  conditions  of  success  on  the 
average,  as  the  New  Testament.  Jesus  Christ  makes 
His  appeal  to  the  best:  upon  the  selected  disciples 
He  spends  His  efforts : for  them  He  prays : them  He 
trains  in  His  own  school  as  the  nucleus  of  a redeemed 
humanity,  to  act  upon  the  world  as  “ salt  ” or  ‘‘  light,” 
or  as  a city  set  upon  a hill  ” : ^ — that  is,  as  a body 
acts,  the  savour  or  appearance  of  which  is  distinct, 
emphatic,  unmistakable.  So  the  Christian  Church 
in  the  world  is  to  be  a body  coherent,  based  upon  dis- 
tinctive principles,  exhibiting  a striking  and  emphatic 
ideal.  It  is  to  be  in  the  world  and  not  of  it : making 
its  impression  by  its  very  distinctiveness  : that  men 
might  by  the  good  works  which  they  should  behold, 
glorify  God,”  if  not  in  days  of  worldliness  and  pros- 
perity, yet  at  least  in  the  day  of  visitation.” 

Now  if,  with  this  intention  of  the  founder  of  our 
religion  in  our  minds,  we  look  back  over  the  history 
of  Christianity,  we  cannot  but  perceive  that  nothing 
has  been  really  more  fatal  to  its  influence,  than  the 
false  methods  of  diffusion  to  which  the  Christian 
Church  has  so  frequently  abandoned  itself.  I refer, 
in  the  first  place,  to  such  wholesale  conversions  of 
races  as  that  to  which  Frankish  Christianity  owed 

1 St.  Matt.  V.  13-16  ; 1 Peter  ii.  11, 12. 


226  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SOH  OF  GOD. 

its  origin : conversions  such  as  led  to  a Christianity 
in  which  catholic  orthodoxy  and  ritual  practices 
were  combined  with  a morality  which,  at  least  in  cer- 
tain aspects,  was  frankly  pagan.  I refer,  secondly, 
to  the  tendency  which  has  exhibited  itself  nowhere 
perhaps  more  conspicuously  than  within  the  area  of 
the  special  influence  of  the  Jesuits,  but  from  which 
those  who  have  been  most  opposed  to  that  great  soci- 
ety have  been  by  no  means  free  — the  tendency  to 
transfer  the  strain  of  Christian  obligation  from  the 
life  to  be  lived,  to  the  creed  to  be  believed : to  make 
dogmatic  orthodoxy  or  submission  to  ecclesiastical 
authority  the  one  thing  needful,”  and  granted  that, 
to  rest  content  with  the  very  least  degree  of  moral 
effort,  as  if  submission  to  the  church  could  compen- 
sate for  it.  Now  there  is  no  doubt  that  if  we  take 
mankind  generally  within  our  view,  we  must  recog- 
nize that  intellectual  submission  and  ritual  conformity 
are  very  much  more  easily  obtained  than  moral  effort. 
But  in  the  New  Testament,  if  Christianity  appears 
as  a religion  making  a definite  demand  upon  the 
intellect,  as  well  as  a definite  claim  upon  the  life,  the 
latter  is  unmistakably  the  more  severe  and  the  more 
prominent.  It  is  assumed  throughout  that  he  that 
‘^willeth  to  do  God’s  will,”  he  who  makes  up  his 
mind  to  moral  self-committal,  shall  ‘‘know  of  the 
doctrine  ” : it  is  assumed  that  the  difficulty  of  being 
a Christian  is  practically  over,  when  the  will  is  right, 
and  the  courage  of  self-committal  won.  In  the  Bible 
the  antithesis  to  faith  is  not  reason  but  sight  — that 
is,  the  vision  limited  by  the  world,  the  worldly  and 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  22? 


selfish  temper.  Now  by  contrast  to  this  I do  not 
think  it  is  possible  to  contemplate  the  Christian 
Church  of  the  middle  ages  or  of  modern  times,  with- 
out seeing  what  great  need  there  has  frequently  been 
to  redress  the  balance.  The  theological  and  moral 
claims  have  shown  a tendency  to  change  places,  and, 
in  consequence,  a very  imperfect  representation  has 
been  given  of  the  claim  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  claim  of 
Christianity  before  it  became  the  nominal  religion  of 
the  world,  upon  the  lives  and  consciences  of  men. 

There  is  one  more  false  principle  of  diffusion  which 
I must  notice : it  is  that  identification  of  the  church 
with  the  nation  which  was  the  outcome  of  the  Refor- 
mation as  it  took  place  in  England,  and  which  in  its 
best  form  is  represented  in  the  ecclesiastical  theory  of 
Hooker.  ^ I say,  it  is  found  in  Hooker  in  its  best 
form,  but  still  in  a form  which  we  can  now  perceive, 
in  the  light  of  experience,  to  have  been  profoundly 
dangerous.  For,  however  noble  is  the  idea  of  a 
Christian  nation  ” the  church  has  no  right  to  com- 
mit itself  to  the  state,  on  the  assumption  that  the 
state  has  committed  itself  to  the  church.  The  assump- 
tion is  unwarranted,  and  the  identification  of  church 
and  state  which  is  grounded  upon  it,  results  in  an 
almost  inevitable  confusion  between  the  province  of 
civil  order  and  civil  obligation,  and  the  province  of 
spiritual  authority  and  spiritual  obligation.  What 
the  state  sanctions,  is  assumed  to  be  the  sufficient 
rule  for  the  Christian : and  what  the  state  sanctions 
must  in  the  long  run,  as  is  increasingly  manifest, 
1 See  EccL  PoL  B.  yiii.  cc.  1.  7,  4. 6,  8.  9. 


228  THE  IHCARHATION  OF  THE  SOH  OF  GOD. 


lepresent  the  judgment  of  the  majority,  or  the  wishes 
of  the  average  man.”  Thus  it  has  come  about  that 
it  is  difficult  — to  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  incredibly  difficult  — to 
persuade  English  people  that  there  is  a law,  and  a social 
law,  binding  upon  Christians,  which  is  not  the  least 
abrogated  because  the  law  of  the  state,  representing  the 
will  of  the  majority,  may  have  come  to  ignore  it; 
that  in  order  to  live  as  Christians  they  have  to  look 
beyond  what  is  generally  expedient,  or  what  appears 
to  be  practicable  in  state  policy,  up  to  the  law  which 
came  forth  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  Christ.  Every 
one  which  heareth  these  words  of  mine,  and  doeth 
them,  shall  be  likened  unto  a wise  man,  which  built 
his  house  upon  the  rock.”  Why,  it  is  assumed  in 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament  that  a Christian 
can  think  of  nothing  less  than  of  taking  his  rule  of 
life  from  the  standard  of  the  world  about  him ! 

The  disastrous  results  of  a diffusion  of  Christianity 
at  the  cost  of  its  intensity,  is  very  apparent  to  those 
of  us  who  are  greatly  interested  in  the  social  prob- 
lems of  the  present  moment.  The  remedies  proposed 
for  the  evils  of  society  have  generally  a more  or  less 
“socialistic”  character.  Now  by  socialism  is  com- 
monly meant  a certain  political  theory  as  to  the  func- 
tion of  the  state  in  controlling  the  freedom  of  individual 
citizens  in  the  acquisition  and  employment  of  wealth. 
With  the  group  of  proposals  which  come  under  this 
head  of  state  socialism,  I am  not  here  at  all  concerned. 
I may,  however,  confess  myself  to  be  among  those 
who  would  somewhat  jealously  set  limits  to  the  pater- 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  229 


nal  supervision  of  the  democratic  state.  But  there  is 
another  sort  of  socialism,  wholly  voluntary,  or  depend- 
ent only  upon  spiritual  sanctions,  which  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Incarnation  seems,  beyond  all  question, 
to  bring  with  it.  There  exists  what  can  rightly  be 
called  a Christian  socialism,  by  the  very  fact  that 
the  law  of  brotherhood  is  the  law  of  Christ.  It  is 
quite  beyond  all  question  that  according  to  the 
intention  of  Christ,  the  Christian  Church  should  at 
all  times  represent  a body  living  not  only  by  a 
certain  rule  of  faith,  but  also  by  a certain  moral 
law,  which  puts  the  sternest  restraints  on  the  spirit 
of  competition,  on  the  acquisition  of  wealth,  on 
selfish  aggrandizement;  which  bids  every  man,  in 
the  simplest  sense,  love  his  neighbour  as  himself, 
which  enjoins  the  bearing  one  another’s  burdens,  as 
the  only  fulfilling  of  the  law  of  Christ.  It  is  difficult 
to  imagine  that  a New  Testament  Christian  could  have 
doubted  that  he  had  to  carry  his  religion  into  all  the 
affairs  of  life,  or  could  have  been  in  the  least  sur- 
prised if  his  religion  involved  his  being  poorer  than 
one  of  his  non-Christian  neighbours  who  was  not 
bound  by  the  obligations  of  the  church.  How  is  it 
then  that  we  have  reached  a condition  of  things  when 
men  cannot  only  utter,  as  multitudes  of  men  always 
have  done,  the  maxims  of  worldliness  and  selfish- 
ness, but  utter  these  maxims  without  any  sense  that, 
by  simplj^  giving  expression  to  them,  they  are  repudi- 
ating Christianity,  as  far  as  words  go,  quite  as  really  as 
if  they  were  denying  the  Christian  creed,  or  as  if  in 
the  old  days  of  persecution,  they  had  offered  incense  to 
the  divinity  of  the  Roman  emperor  ? 


230  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

What  I am  complaining  of,  what  I want  you  tc 
complain  of,  with  a persistence  and  a conviction  which 
shall  make  our  complaint  fruitful  of  reform,  is  — not 
that  commercial  and  social  selfishness  exists  in  the 
world,  or  even  that  it  appears  to  dominate  in  society : 
but  that  its  profound  antagonism  to  the  spirit  of 
Christ  is  not  recognized,  that  there  is  not  amongst  us, 
anything  that  can  be  called  an  adequate  conception 
of  what  Christian  morality  means.  The  prophetic 
function  of  the  church,  as  it  seems  to  me,  at  the  pres- 
ent moment,  is  not  so  much,  in  the  first  instance,  to 
expand  Christian  influence  as  to  concentrate  it : to 
see  to  it  that  all  men,  whatsoever  be  their  own  con- 
victions and  practices,  shall  at  least  acknowledge 
what  it  is  that  a Christian  must  believe,  and  how  it  is 
that  a Christian  must  live  and  act  at  all  the  points 
where  he  touches  human  life. 

There  must  be  produced  a clear  acknowledgment 
of  what  it  is  that  a Christian  must  believe.  We  must 
strive  to  purge  from  all  accretions  the  current  pre- 
sentation of  the  Christian  creed,  and  to  rid  it  of  all 
that  can  bring  it  into  conflict  with  the  legitimate 
claims  of  reason,  or  seem  to  limit  the  freedom  of 
inquiry  or  of  criticism.  We  must  so  preach  our  creed, 
as  to  ‘‘  commend  ourselves  to  every  man’s  conscience 
in  the  sight  of  God.”  But  when  we  have  done  our 
best  to  effect  this,  the  Christian  creed  will  stand  out, 
as  in  past  history  and  in  scripture,  so  in  the  preach- 
ing of  to-day,  as  a distinctive  intellectual  position, 
in  regard  to  which  a man  may  be  in  one  of  many 
different  attitudes,  but  the  general  meaning  of  which 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  231 


he  can  hardly  fail  to  apprehend.  In  the  same  way  we 
must  have  all  men  acknowledge  how  it  is  that  a 
Christian  must  live.  We  want  the  Christian  moral 
law,  the  law  of  purity,  of  brotherhood,  of  sacrifice,  to 
be  as  intelligibly  presented  and  as  clearly  understood, 
as  the  dogmas  of  the  Christian  creed.  We  want  it 
worked  out  with  adequate  knowledge  in  its  bearing 
on  the  various  departments  of  human  life.  In  a word, 
we  want  a fresh  and  luminous  presentation  of  the 
Christian  moral  code  and  some  adequate  guarantee 
that  one  who  is  deliberately,  persistently,  and  in  overt 
act,  repudiating  its  plainest  obligations  shall  cease  to 
belong  to  the  Christian  body.  Do  not  ye,”  writes 
St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthian  Church,  judge  them  that 
are  within,  whereas  them  that  are  without  God  judg- 
eth  ? Put  away  the  wicked  man  from  among  your- 
selves.”^ 

For  Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
forever.  The  claim  which  He  made  on  the  contem- 
poraries of  His  life  on  earth,  is  the  claim  which  He 
makes  on  His  disciples  to-day.  Many  will  come  to 
Him  at  the  last  day  — so  we  cannot  but  paraphrase 
His  own  words  — with  manifold  pleas  and  excuses 
derived  from  the  maxims  of  what  is  called  the  Chris- 
tian world : “ Lord,  we  never  denied  the  Christian 
creed : nay,  we  had  a zeal  for  orthodoxy,  for  church- 
manship,  for  Bible  distribution,  but  of  course  in  our 
business  we  did  as  every  one  else  did : we  sold  in  the 
dearest  and  bought  in  the  cheapest  market : we  did 
not,  of  course,  we  did  not,  entertain  any  other  con- 
1 See  app.  note  67. 


232  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

sideration,  when  we  were  investing  our  money,  ex- 
cept whether  the  investments  were  safe : we  never 
imagined  that  we  could  love  our  neighbours  as  our- 
selves in  the  competition  of  business,  or  that  we 
could  carry  into  commercial  transactions  the  sort  of 
strict  righteousness  that  we  knew  to  be  obligatory  in 
private  life.  Lord,  in  all  these  matters  we  went  by 
commonly  accepted  standards : we  never  thought 
much  about  Christianity  as  a brotherhood.”  Then 
will  He  protest  unto  them,  ‘‘Did  I not  say  to  thee 
and  to  thee,  in  that  written  word  wherein  thou  didst 
profess  to  have  eternal  life  : ‘ A man’s  life  consisteth 
not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  that  he  possess- 
eth  ’ ? Did  not  I warn  thee,  ‘ How  hardly  shall  they 
that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ’ ? 
Did  I not  bid  thee  seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
His  righteousness?  Did  I not  tell  thee  that  except 
a man,  in  spirit  or  will  at  least,  forsook  all  that  he 
had,  unless  he  took  up  his  cross  and  followed  Me, 
he  could  not  be  My  disciple?  Not  every  one  that 
saith  unto  Me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth,  that  hath  done,  the 
will  of  My  Father.” 

Brethren,  you  may  depend  upon  it  that  you  cannot 
be  Christians  by  mere  tradition  or  mere  respectability. 
You  will  have  to  choose  to  be  Christians.  Let  the 
figure  of  Christ,  our  Master,  personal  and  living  as 
of  old,  be  before  your  eyes.  He  lays  upon  you  a 
claim  of  service  : varying  as  His  vocations  are  vari- 
ous, as  your  faculties  are  various ; as  clergy  and 
laity,  Apostles  and  disciples,  married  and  celibate, 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  233 

saint  and  penitent,  have  their  place  in  His  kingdom: 
but  upon  all  of  you  He  lays  the  same  claim  of  ser- 
vice, of  purity,  of  sacrifice,  of  brotherhood.  He  will 
make  His  yoke  easy  and  His  burden  light,  in  mani- 
fold ways,  as  His  consolations  are  manifold,  but  in 
proportion  as  you  take  His  yoke  and  accept  His  bur- 
den with  thorough  loyalty.  If  you  will  to  be  His  disci- 
ple, He  will  enrich  your  life.  He  will  purge  it  of  its 
pollution.  He  will  conquer  your  lusts.  He  will  en- 
lighten your  mind.  He  will  deepen  in  you  all  that 
is  generous  and  rich  and  brotherly  and  true  and  just. 
He  will  make  your  life  worth  having,  yea,  increas- 
ingly worth  having,  as  you  gain  in  experience  of  His 
power  and  His  love,  even  to  the  end.  He  will  touch 
your  sufferings  and  your  labours  with  the  glory  of 
His  sympathy ; He  will  deepen  your  hopes  for  your- 
selves and  others  with  the  security  of  an  eternal  pros- 
pect. At  the  last  He  will  purify  and  perfect  and 
welcome  you.  Only  do  not  make  the  fatal  mistake  of 
imagining  that  your  life  is  Christian  anyhow,  or  that 
it  can  be  Christian  by  any  other  process  than  by 
your  deliberate  and  courageous  acceptance  of  the 
law  of  Christ,  because  you  desire  to  be  His  disciple. 

III. 

So  far  the  position  has  been  maintained  that 
Christianity  must  be  identified  with  a positive  and 
exacting  moral  standard : that  the  church  exists  as 
‘‘  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth,”  because  she  is 
to  witness,  not  only  to  definite  theological  positions, 


234  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

but  also  to  a definite  moral  ideal,  which  is,  as  well,  a 
moral  claim  upon  the  members  of  her  communion. 

Now  I think  no  one  can  read  the  Gospels  with  any 
seriousness,  or  the  records  of  the  apostolic  church, 
without  acknowledging  the  truth  of  what  has  been 
said.  Further  than  this,  no  one  can  study  the  history 
of  the  Christian  Church  from  the  apostolic  days  to 
our  own,  without  acknowledging  that  the  leavening, 
transforming  power  of  Christianity  on  individuals 
and  on  societies  has  been  due  mainly  to  the  Saints  — 
that  is,  to  those  who  have  made  the  ideal  standard 
the  real  standard  which  it  has  been  their  supreme 
aim  to  follow.  So  far  as  the  average  standard  of 
society  has  been  raised,  it  is  mainly  the  saints  who 
have  raised  it : and  conversely  it  has  been  found  true 
that  when  the  best  men  stop  trying,  the  world 
sinks  back  like  lead.”  All  this  is  indubitable.  Still, 
with  that  mixture  of  humility  and  laziness  which 
characterizes  so  many  of  us,  a man  may  look  seriously 
at  a Christian  preacher  and  ask : “ do  you  really 
mean  that  I in  my  ordinary  life  in  the  world,  I with 
my  coarse,  common-place  temptations,  I with  my 
way  to  make  in  the  world  as  it  is,  I with  my  antece- 
dents, my  surroundings,  and  my  prospects,  am  to  set 
myself  up  to  imitate  Jesus  Christ  or  forfeit  the  title 
to  the  name  of  Christian?  Is  the  imitation  of  Jesus 
really  practicable  ? ” 

It  is  when  we  are  in  the  frame  of  mind  which  this 
questioning  represents  that  we  need  to  consider 
steadily  a certain  prominent  aspect  of  Christianity; 
an  aspect  which  makes  it,  in  spite  of  its  apparent 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  235 


hardness,  pre-eminently  the  religion  of  hope  for  all 
who  have  the  courage  to  begin  to  try  to  serve  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  patience  to  make  fresh  beginnings 
after  renewed  failures. 

The  Christian  Church  upholds  a moral  ideal,  and 
tnus  teaches  men  the  true  end  of  human  life,  but  her 
special  characteristic  is  rather  that  she  supplies  the 
means,  than  that  she  suggests  the  end.  Philosophers 
on  the  whole  have  been  not  unsuccessful  in  proclaim- 
ing the  ideal  of  life:  they  have  shown  their  weak- 
ness in  providing  means  for  realizing  it.  Here  is  the 
strength  of  the  Christian  Church.  She  is  a great 
system  of  means  to  the  moral  end,  the  means  ” that 
“ God  devised  that  his  banished  should  not  be  ex- 
pelled from  him.” 

If  we  look  higher  still,  we  do  indeed  behold  our 
Lord  setting  an  example : but  we  observe  also  that 
there  is  something  which  He  appraises  higher  than 
this  function  of  example.  Had  this  been  His  highest 
work,  it  would,  beyond  a doubt,  have  been  expedient 
for  us,  if  possible,  that  He  should  not  have  gone 
away.  As  it  was,  it  was  expedient  ” that  His  dis- 
ciples should  lose  His  visible  example  that  they  might 
gain  a greater  gift  — the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  ‘‘  If  I 
go  not  away  the  Paraclete  will  not  come  unto  you ; 
but  if  I go,  I will  send  him  unto  you.”  ^ In  fact  the 
Paraclete  did  come  at  Pentecost,  and  in  virtue  of  His 
coming  the  church  became  a body  instinct  with  a new 
life,  and  Christianity  a thing  not  in  word,  but  in 
power.” 


I St.  John  xvi.  7. 


236  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Thus  if  we  examine  the  writings  not  of  St.  Paul 
and  St.  John  only,  but  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  James, 
we  find  the  thought  expressed  everywhere  in  the  / 
New  Testament  that  Christians  have  been  born 
again ; that  what  distinguishes  them  from  other  men 
is  the  possession,  over  and  above  the  ordinary  human 
faculties  and  powers,  of  a special  power,  a special 
life,  derived  from  a definite  act  of  God  upon  them  by 
which  they  became  the  subjects  of  a new  birth.  St. 
Paul  and  St.  John  further  explain  this  new  birth J 
It  is  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  into  a man’s  life  which 
constitutes  it : but  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  in  a par- 
ticular manner,  namely  to  introduce  Christ.  The 
persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  are  not,  as  was  said, 
separable  individuals.^  They  involve  each  the  others; 
the  coming  of  each  is  the  coming  of  the  others.  Thus 
the  coming  of  the  Spirit  must  have  involved  the 
coming  of  the  Son.  But  the  speciality  of  the  Pen- 
tecostal gift  appears  to  be  the  coming  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  out  of  the  uplifted  and  glorified  Manhood  of 
the  incarnate  Son.  The  Spirit  is  the  life-giver,  but 
the  life  with  which  He  works  in  the  church  is  the 
life  of  the  Incarnate^  the  life  of  Jesus.^  We  watch 
the  perfect  life  of  Jesus  as  our  example : we  behold 
Him  and  accept  Him  as  the  perfect  sacrifice : we  con- 
template Him  raised  up,  beyond  example  and  beyond 
sacrifice,  into  the  glory  of  the  Father,  ‘‘separated 
from  sinners  and  made  higher  than  the  heavens,” 
spiritualized  and  glorified  — but  not  dehumanized. 
In  the  glory  of  the  Father  He  is  still  the  Son  of 

1 See  app.  note  58.  2 g^e  above,  pp.  144-5.  s gee  app.  note  59. 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  KEW  LIFE.  237 


man.  As  Son  of  man  He  has  sent  down  His  Spirit 
upon  the  church  and  that  Spirit  does  not  merely 
supply  the  absence,  but  accomplishes  the  inward 
presence  of  the  incarnate  Christ.  For  this  primarily 
the  church  exists  : to  be  the  Spirit-bearing  body,  and 
that  is  to  be  the  bearer  of  Christ,  the  great  Chris 
topher,”  perpetuating,  in  a new,  but  not  less  real 
way,  the  presence  of  the  Son  of  man  in  the  world. 

In  the  second  of  these  lectures,  the  difficulty  was 
raised,^  that  if  the  Christ  represents  the  emergence  of 
a new  sort  of  life  into  the  world  of  experience,  as 
organic  life  emerged  out  of  the  heart  of  inorganic,  or 
rational  out  of  the  heart  of  what  was  only  physical, 
— then  the  Christ-life  ” ought  to  have  been  per- 
petuated, and  become  a permanent  element  of  expe- 
rience. It  was  pointed  out  in  partial  solution  of  this 
difficulty  that  in  one  sense  the  uniqueness  of  the 
Christ  is  a necessary  condition  of  His  existence,  that 
there  cannot  be  more  than  one  incarnate  Son  of  God : 
but  it  is  also  true  that  what  was  realized  once  for  all 
in  Jesus,  is  perpetuated  in  the  world.  The  church 
is  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  the  extension  and  per- 
petuation of  the  Incarnation  in  the  world.  It  is  this, 
because  it  embodies  the  same  principle,  and  lives  by 
the  same  life. 

The  church  embodies  the  same  principle  as  the 
“ Word  made  flesh,”  that  is,  the  expression  and  com- 
munication of  the  spiritual  and  the  divine  through 
what  is  material  and  human.  It  is  a human  and 
material  society.  Its  sacraments  are  visible  instru- 
1 See  above,  p.  55. 


238  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

ments : its  unity  is  that  of  a visible  organization 
bound  into  one  at  least  by  the  link  of  an  apostolic 
succession  and  an  historical  continuity.  But  this 
visible,  material,  human  society  exists  to  receive,  to 
embody  and  to  communicate  a spiritual  life.  And 
this  life  is  none  other  than  the  life  of  the  Incar- 
nate. The  church  exists  to  perpetuate  in  every  age 
the  life  of  Jesus,  the  union  of  manhood  with  God- 
head. 

No  doubt  this  does  not  always  appear  upon  the 
surface,  for  the  church  has  a majority  of  unworthy 
members.  As  I suppose  the  true  English  character 
is  to  be  judged  of,  not  by  all  Englishmen,  but  by  the 
best  Englishmen,  so  the  Christian  character  is  to  be 
seen  in  genuine  Christians.  But  the  genuine  Chris- 
tians are  the  justification  in  every  age  of  the  church’s 
existence.  In  every  age  there  are  those  of  whose 
life  no  other  account  can  be  given  and  who  could 
give  no  other  account  of  their  own  life,  than  that  it 
‘‘  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.”  It  is  this  truth  of 
Christ  living  in  His  members  by  His  Spirit,  that  I 
would  have  you  consider.  The  Incarnation  did  not 
end  in  Christ  our  head : it  passed  on  to  the  incorpo- 
ration of  us  His  members.  Thus  when  Christ  who 
is  our  life  shall  appear,  we  also  shall  appear  with  Him 
in  glory.” 

Looking  at  the  matter  not  historically  or  specula- 
tively but  personally  — what  is  it  for  me  to  be  a 
Christian  ? It  is  to  know  that  my  spiritual  life  is  not 
an  isolated  thing,  drawing  simply  upon  its  own  re- 
sources. God  the  Holy  Spirit  has  entered  at  definite 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  239 

moments  of  baptism  and  confirmation,  by  definite  acts 
of  God,  into  my  innermost  being.  He  dwells  within 
the  temple  of  my  body;  and  by  dwelling  there  He 
links  my  life  on  to  the  great  system  of  the  redeemed 
humanity.  I am  a ‘‘  member  incorporate  in  the  mys- 
tical body  of  Christ,  which  is  the  blessed  company  of 
all  faithful  people.”  And  every  temptation,  every 
need,  every  suffering,  every  disappointment,  is  meant 
to  drive  me  more  inward  and  upward  to  realize  and 
to  draw  upon  the  hidden  resources  of  my  new  life  — 
which  is  ‘‘  Christ  in  me  the  hope  of  glory.” 


IV. 

The  point  upon  which  I am  insisting  is  that  if  our 
Lord  is  our  example  and  our  sacrifice.  He  is  also,  by 
the  infusion  of  His  Spirit  our  present  inward  life, 
the  life  of  our  life  ” : that  if  the  church  exists  to 
uphold  a moral  standard,  she  exists  also  as  a body 
ensouled  by  a Spirit  who  makes  that  standard  practi- 
cable : or,  in  other  words,  that  the  one  end  of  Chris- 
tianity is  not  the  proclamation,  but  the  fulfilling,  of 
the  law.  God,”  says  St.  Paul,  sending  his  own 
Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  and  as  an  offering 
for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh : that  the  require- 
ment of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk 
not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit.  . . . For  ye 
are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  spirit,  if  so  be  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you.  But  if  any  man  hath 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.  And  if 
Christ  is  in  you  . . . the  spirit  is  life  because  of 


240  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

righteousness.”  ^ This  doctrine  of  the  inward  Christ, 
‘‘  Christ  in  us  the  hope  of  glory,”  is  a doctrine  of 
which  the  New  Testament  is  full.  Mystical  as  it  is, 
and  transcending,  as  it  does,  our  faculties  of  intel- 
lectual analysis,  it  has  been  ridiculed,  as  fit  only  for 
enthusiasts,  in  a rationalistic  age  such  as  the  last 
century  ; but  every  revival  of  vital  Christianity  brings 
it  to  the  front  again,  and  roots  it  anew  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  serious  and  devout  Christians,  though 
they  be  ‘‘  plain  men  ” and  unimpassioned.  It  will 
become  real  to  each  man  in  turn,  as  he  meditates  and 
acts  upon  it : and  in  it  he  will  find  the  explanation 
of  three  very  commonly  felt  difficulties. 

(1)  First,  let  us  attend  to  the  difficulty  which  is 
raised  about  the  example  of  our  Lord  — how  can  the 
sinless  Jesus  be  an  example  for  us  sinners?  When 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says  that  our 
Lord  was  ‘‘  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  with 
the  exception  of  sin,”  or  ‘‘apart  from  sin ”2  he  is 
stating  that  humanity  in  our  Lord  was  really  exposed 
to  all  the  trials  which  can  come  upon  man  from  out- 
side, and  tempted  by  all  external  solicitations ; but 
that  temptation  in  His  case  was  unaccompanied  by 
one  condition  with  which  we  are  familiar  — His 
nature  was  without  sin.  But  after  all  this  exception 
is  so  considerable  as  to  appear  at  first  sight  to  destroy 
the  value  of  His  example ; for  it  is  the  presence  of 
sin  within  — the  tyranny  of  passions,  the  disorder  of 
faculties,  the  inward  taint  and  weakness  — which 

1 Rom.  viii.  3-10. 

^ Heb.  iv.  15,  a/aapria?.  See  Westcott  in  loc* 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  241 


gives  temptation  in  our  case  its  chief  power.  We 
should  not  so  much  fear  the  outward  foe,  we  feel, 
were  it  not  for  the  traitor  within  the  camp.  Does 
not  Christ  then  by  His  very  sinlessness,  still  more  by 
His  impeccability,  fail  in  the  conditions  of  a profit- 
able example? 

This  difficulty,  perhaps,  like  many  others,  needs 
only  to  be  pressed  further  to  suggest  its  own  solution. 
For  after  all  the  limits  to  the  power  of  mere  example 
are  very  soon  reached.  Mere  example  acts  most  power- 
fully where  men  are  living  close  together  and  under 
like  conditions,  as  among  the  members  of  the  same 
college  or  school  or  profession,  in  the  same  house- 
hold, in  the  relationship  of  friends » Its  power  is 
weakened  rapidly  by  anything  that  separates  one 
man  from  another  in  conditions  of  life.  Thus,  the 
sobriety  of  a clergyman  is  not,  so  far,  a powerful 
example  to  the  labouring  man,  or  the  temperance  of 
an  Italian  or  of  a Mohammedan  to  an  Englishman,  or 
the  patience  of  the  aged  to  the  young,  or  the  feats  of 
ancient  heroes  to  modern  readers.  Once  more,  when- 
ever we  feel  the  touch  of  genius,  we  reach  a limit  to 
the  power  of  example.  What  man  has  done,  man 
can  do,”  is,  in  fact,  a maxim  of  very  limited  applica- 
bility. Quite  apart  then  from  the  question  of  impec- 
cability or  even  of  sinlessness,  the  mere  example  of 
Jesus  Christ,  as  a character  in  ancient  history,  would 
be  singularly  destitute  of  encouragement  to  us  in  our 
temptations  to-day,  if  He  was  only  our  example.  For 
at  the  lowest  He  would  stand  as  a supreme  moral 
genius,  like  a Julius  Caesar  or  a Shakespeare  in  other 


242  THE  IHCARHATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

regions  of  life ; and  we  should  feel  that  it  would  be 
as  fallacious  to  conclude  that  we  could  live  as  Christ 
had  lived,  as  it  would  be  to  conclude  that  we  could 
write  a tragedy  like  Hamlet,”  or  model  our  career 
upon  the  pattern  set  us  by  the  founder  of  the  Roman 
Empire. 

But  in  fact  Jesus  Christ  is  a great  deal  more  to  us 
than  a remote  and  external  figure  in  history.  He  is 
a still  living  person  in  the  closest  possible  relation 
to  us.  He  is  a person  who  while  human,  has  yet, 
in  virtue  of  His  Godhead,  access  into  the  innermost 
parts  of  our  being,  into  the  very  roots  of  our  person- 
ality ; and  He  has  become,  even  in  His  manhood, 
quickening  spirit.”  ^ Alive  in  heaven.  He  is  thus 
also  alive  in  us,  dwelling  in  us,  by  the  Spirit  which 
He  hath  given  us.  He  is  moulding  us  inwardly 
and  gradually,  in  this  life  and  beyond  it,  into 
the  likeness  of  that  example,  which  at  the  first  He 
set  outwardly  before  us.  We  look  to  His  example, 
we  contemplate  the  pattern  of  life  which  stands  for- 
ever before  our  eyes  in  the  pages  of  the  Gospels : and 
we  know  that  the  moral  forces  which  were  at  work 
in  that  life  to  exempt  it  from  sin,  to  overcome  Satan, 
to  win  the  fiawless  moral  victory,  are  all  without 
exception,  and  without  deterioration,  at  work  in  our 
life  to-day.  For  His  Spirit  is  made  our  Spirit : His 
life  is  poured  into  ours.  We  look  at  Him  in  history 
to  know  what  we  must  become : we  draw  upon  His 
present  Spirit  in  order  to  its  realization. 

(2)  In  this  truth  of  the  inward  Christ,  let  us  see 

1 See  app.  note  60. 


CHEIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  243 


the  explanation  of  a doctrine  which  often  bewilders 
RS,  the  imputation  to  us  of  Christ’s  merits.  To 
impute  the  merits  of  one  person  to  another,  external 
to  him  and  independent  of  him,  would  always  be  an 
arbitrary  and  immoral  act.  But  on  the  other  hand 
we  are  none  of  us  isolated  individuals.  To  take  true 
account  of  any  one,  we  must  look  at  him  not  merely 
in  himself,  but  in  the  light  of  those  larger  forces  of 
race,  of  family,  of  association,  which  are  at  work  in 
him.  Fathers  and  mothers,  friends  and  kinsmen, 
interpret  to  us  those  upon  whom  their  influence 
passes,  and  make  us  think  of  them  with  more  or  less 
of  hope  than  they,  taken  by  themselves,  would  kindle. 

Looking  at  the  mother,”  wrote  George  Eliot  of  Mrs. 
Garth,  ‘‘you  might  hope  that  the  daughter  would 
become  like  her  — which  is  a prospective  advantage 
equal  to  a dowry  — the  mother  too  often  standing 
behind  the  daughter  like  a malignant  prophecy, 
‘ such  as  I am,  she  will  shortly  be.’  ” George  Eliot, 
you  see,  imputes  hy  anticipation  to  the  daughter  the 
merits  of  the  mother,  because  her  life  is,  so  to  speak, 
of  the  same  piece.  Now,  by  new  birth  and  spiritual 
union,  our  life  is  of  the  same  piece  with  the  life  of 
Jesus.  Thus  He,  our  elder  brother,  stands  behind 
us.  His  people,  as  a prophecy  of  all  good.  Thus  God 
accepts  us,  deals  with  us,  “m  the  beloved”:  rating  us 
at  something  of  His  value,  imputing  to  us  His  merits, 
because  in  fact,  except  we  be  reprobates.  He  Himself 
is  the  most  powerful  and  real  force  at  work  in  us. 
So  it  is  that  in  imputing  to  us  the  merits  of  His  Son, 
the  Father  is  only  dealing  with  us  according  to  His 


244  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  OOD. 

constant  and  most  righteous  method.  For  He  deals 
with  us  and  He  loves  us,  as  St.  Augustine  says,  not 
as  we  are,  but  as  we  are  becoming,  ^‘  non  quales 
sumus,  sed  quales  futuri  sumus.”  ^ 

In  the  light  of  this  principle  you  can  understand 
why  it  is  that  our  sins  can  be  forgiven  us  “ in  the 
name  of  Jesus  ” ; why  the  sacrament  of  our  incorpo- 
ration into  Christ  is  also  the  sacrament  of  plenary 
absolution,  and  we  can  profess  our  belief  “in  one 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  For  consider: 
God,  who  is  truth,  deals  with  us  according  to  reality. 
He  must  deal  with  things  at  the  last  resort  as  they 
are.  He  cannot  reckon  what  does  belong  to  us,  as 
if  it  did  not.  Thus  at  the  last  He  can  only  ‘‘  not 
impute  ” our  sins  to  us,  if  they  no  longer  belong  to 
our  transformed  characters ; as  Saul  the  persecutor’s 
kicking  against  the  pricks”  belongs  no  longer  to 
Paul  the  Apostle,  ‘‘the  slave  of  Jesus  Christ.”  We 
can  be  absolved  then,  at  the  last  great  acquittal,  only 
because,  by  discipline  in  this  world  or  beyond  it,  we 
have  actually  had  our  sins  purged  out  of  us.  Here 
in  this  world  in  order  at  any  moment  to  be  the  sub- 
jects of  forgiveness,  we  must  really  repent,  which 
means  that  we  really  abjure  our  sins  and  separate 
ourselves  from  them  in  will  and  intention.  Not  the 
best  of  us  however  can  hope  to  be  completely  freed 
from  sin  except  very  slowly  and  gradually.  But  God 
deals  with  us  — this  is  the  great  truth  — by  antici- 
pation, by  anticipation  of  all  that  is  to  come  about  in 
us,  “ non  quales  sumus,  sed  quales  futuri  sumus  ” ; 

1 S.  Aug.  de  Trin.  1. 10  (21). 


CHKIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  245 


accepting  us  in  Christy  forgiving  us  in  Christy  and 
thus  setting  us  free  from  the  burden  of  our  past  sins, 
as  often  as,  being  really  members  of  Christ,  we  do 
really  in  the  sincerity  of  a good  will,  unite  ourselves 
to  Him  and  claim  to  be  His  servants.  Only  if  we 
repudiate  our  Lord,  if  we  “ crucify  the  Son  of  God 
afresh  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame,”  do  we  stand 
once  again  in  our  nakedness,  so  that  God  must  judge 
us  and  deal  with  us  not  as  in  Christ’s  righteousness 
and  better  than  we  seem,  but  as  the  children  of  dark- 
ness and  the  subjects  of  judgment. 

(3)  This  truth  of  the  immanence  of  Jesus  Christ 
by  the  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  the  believer,  gives  us  the 
right  position  for  appreciating  the  functions  of  faith 
within  the  area  of  the  Christian  life.  Faith,  in  the 
documents  of  the  New  Testament,  addressed  as  they 
were  to  men  who  had  mostly  passed  into  the  Chris- 
tian Church  from  Judaism  or  heathenism,  is  fre- 
quently spoken  of  as  that  initial  act  by  which  a man 
became  a Christian.  Received  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,” 
asks  St.  Paul,  by  the  work  of  the  law  or  by  the 
hearing  of  faith  ? ” ^ This  initial  act  of  faith  by 
which  men  first  accepted  the  offer  of  God  made  to 
them  in  Christ  Jesus,  was  intellectually  the  recogni- 
tion that  Jesus  is  the  Lord”:^  morally  the  com- 
mittal of  the  life  to  Him  for  pardon,  for  peace,  for 
government.  This  initial  justifying  faith  is  itself  the 
gift  of  God,  for  ‘‘no  man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,”  ^ — but  it  also  leads  the  way  to 
further  gifts.  “We  have  had  our  access  by  faith  into 
1 Gal.  iii.  2.  2 Rom.  x.  9.  ^ 1 Qor.  xii.  3. 


246  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

this  grace  wherein  we  stand,”  says  St.  Paul  again ; ^ 
access  by  faith  into  grace.  The  believer  is  baptized, 
in  the  ‘‘bath  of  regeneration,”  “into  Jesus  Christ.”^ 
He  is  sealed,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  with  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  dwell  personally  within 
the  temple  of  his  body.  He  is  fed  with  the  royal 
food  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.^  Henceforth 
faith  has  no  further  need  to  ask  for  any  completer 
bestowal  of  divine  gifts.  All  that  can  be  given,  has 
been  already  received.  Thus  all  through  the  New 
Testament  the  language  is  avoided  which  would  sug- 
gest that  Christians  have  need  to  ask  for  the  supply 
of  the  Spirit.  They  are  men  who  possess  the  gift 
and  only  need  to  use  it.  “ Quench  not  the  Spirit,” 
“grieve  not  the  Spirit,”  “ye  did  receive  the  Spirit,” 
“the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you,”  “stir  up  the 
gift  that  is  in  you.”  This  is  the  language  used,  some- 
times even  to  very  imperfect  Christians  at  Corinth 
and  elsewhere.^  Faith  then,  in  those  who  are  already 
Christians,  enters  upon  a new  function  — that  of  real- 
izing and  appropriating  the  truth  and  grace  which 
has  been  already  won.  Intellectually  faith  is  to  med- 
itate upon  the  sacred  Name  which  has  been  invoked 
upon  the  life  : morally  it  is  to  draw  upon  and  use  by 
repeated  acts  of  the  will  the  vast  resources  of  power 
which  have  been  put  at  its  disposal  in  the  indwelling 
of  Christ.  So  by  a gradual  process  of  appropriation 
“ Christ  ” is  to  be  “ formed  within  ” : the  Christian 

1 Rom.  V.  2.  2 Tit.  iii.  5 ; cf . Rom.  vi.  3. 

8 Acts  viii.  17,  18,  xix.  6,  1 Cor.  vi.  19,  x.  16. 

4 1 Thess.  V.  19,  Eph.  iv.  30,  Gal.  iii.  2, 1 Cor.  vi.  19,  2 Tim.  i.  6. 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  247 


is  to  grow  up,  in  the  fellowship  of  the  one  body,  into 
‘‘the  perfect  man.” 

If  we  would  consent  to  consider  this  matter  anew 
and  appreciate  this  correlation  of  the  grace  which  is 
communicated  in  sacraments,  with  the  faith  which 
appropriates  and  uses  it,  we  should  not  only  read 
more  intelligently  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, but  we  should  also  be  less  ready  to  suppose 
that  the  Catholic  insistance  upon  sacraments,  is  in 
any  necessary  contradiction  to  the  Evangelical  insist- 
ance upon  the  need  of  a converted  will,  and  of  a faith 
which  is  something  much  more  than  passive  ortho- 
doxy. Successful  life  in  any  stage  of  nature’s  devel- 
opment appears  to  consist  in  a vigorous  appropriation 
by  a certain  organism  of  what  is  supplied  to  it  by  its 
outward  environment.  When  Jesus  came  to  heal 
men’s  bodies.  His  physical  cures  exhibited  this  same 
law  of  correspondence.  It  was  the  virtue  or  power 
which  went  out  from  Him  which  was  the  instrument 
of  healing,  but  it  was  the  function  of  faith  to  appro- 
priate and  use  it.  According  to  men’s  faith,  so  was 
it  done  to  them.  These,  our  Lord’s  miracles  of  heal- 
ing, were  but  symbols  of  His  spiritual  action.  Still 
our  spiritual  recovery  is  to  be  through  our  vigorous 
appropriation,  by  the  activity  of  faith,  of  gifts  com- 
municated from  without.  Through  the  sacraments 
God  bestows  the  gifts : through  them  is  secured  our 
spiritual  contact  with  Christ.^  But  this  outward 
supply  of  grace,  independently  of  any  action  on  our 
part,  is  but  the  challenge  to  faith  to  claim  and  appro- 
1 See  app.  note  61. 


248  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

priate  its  rich  heritage.  True,  positive  apostasy  may 
forfeit  the  gift  altogether.  Short  of  that,  the  gift  re- 
mains, but  its  effect  on  us  is  wholly  dependent  on  the 
faith  of  intellect  and  will,  which  realizes  it  and  uses  it. 

Why  do  we  grow  so  little  in  grace  ? It  is,  because 
we  do  not  use  our  intellect  to  meditate  upon  the 
forces  of  the  unseen  world  amidst  which  we  live,  or 
our  will  to  draw  upon  them.  In  the  moment  of 
temptation  we  fight,  sadly  often,  in  our  own  powers, 
and  we  fail.  We  know  that  we  are  weak,  and  sin 
and  Satan  are  strong,  and  we  know  the  truth.  But 
there  is  a third  power  stronger  than  either  our  weak- 
ness or  the  forces  of  evil,  which  we  commonly  forget, 
and  which  will  never  disclose  itself  except  in  our 
using  of  it.  We  must  stir  up  the  gift  within  us. 
Within  us  we  have  the  Spirit  of  power,  the  Spirit  of 
Jesus,  the  life  of  Jesus.  It  remains  to  us  to  appeal 
to  it ; in  constant  acts  of  faith  to  draw  upon  it  and 
to  use  it.  Thus  it  will  become  to  each  of  us  as  much 
a truth  of  experience  as  it  was  to  St.  Paul,  and  no 
vague  language  of  metaphor,  that  ‘‘it  is  no  longer 
merely  I that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  me.” 


V. 

I have  come  to  the  end  of  my  task.  My  point  of 
departure  was  that  Christianity,  whether  we  accept 
it  or  not,  is  in  fact  the  religion  based  upon  faith  in 
the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  considered  as  the  Son  of 
God  incarnate.^  I endeavoured  to  make  it  plain  that 


1 Lecture 


CHKIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  249 


this  supernatural  Person  is  no  unnatural  phenome- 
non, but  is  in  very  truth  the  consummation  of  na- 
ture’s order,  or  the  rectification  of  it,  so  far  as  sin, 
which  is  unnatural,  has  thrown  it  into  disorder.^  I 
endeavoured  to  satisfy  you  that  no  legitimate  criti- 
cism can  impair  the  witness  of  history  to  the  miracu- 
lous personality  and  strictly  divine  claim  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.2  Next  it  was  my  task  to  vindicate  the 
Catholic  creeds,  as  simply  interpreting  and  guarding 
the  record  of  Christ’s  person,  divine  and  human, 
which  the  New  Testament  gives.^  After  that,  using 
the  creeds  as  our  guides  in  dwelling  on  the  evangeli- 
cal records,  but  never  as  substitutes  for  that  record, 
I endeavoured  to  lead  you  to  dwell  upon  the  person 
of  Jesus,  God  in  manhood.  We  considered  together 
what  is  the  revelation  of  God,  given  us  there  in  the 
intelligible  terms  of  our  humanity ; ^ and  what  is  the 
revelation  of  manhood,  which  we  owe  to  His  self- 
sacrifice,  who  emptied  Himself  of  divine  prerogatives, 
that  He  might  truly  live  as  Son  of  man.^  Finally, 
omitting,  for  lack  of  space,  all  consideration  of  His 
atoning  sacrifice,  we  have  dwelt  upon  the  chief  re- 
maining functions  of  this  Son  of  man,  as  the  spiritual 
authority  over  humanity ; ® as  erecting  by  His  out- 
ward example  its  moral  standard ; as  being  its  inward 
recreator  by  spiritual  communication  of  His  own 
life.7 

I have  done  my  task.  I have  borne  my  witness. 
And  yet  it  is  not  mine,  but  the  witness  of  something 

1 Lecture  ii.  2 Lecture  iii.  ^ Lecture  iv.  ^ Lecture  v. 

5 Lecture  vi.  ^ Lecture  vii.  ^ Lecture  viii. 


250  THE  INCAEHATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

in  comparison  of  which  any  single  preacher  is  indeed 
nothing.  It  is  the  witness  of  that  great  movement 
of  the  redeemed  humanity  that  links  us  in  spiritual 
communion  across  the  ages  with  the  first  Apostles. 
They  first  received  the  witness  and  set  to  their  seals 
to  the  offer  of  God  — set  to  their  seals  that  God 
was  true.”  Generation  after  generation  has  handed 
down  the  offer  to  us.  Amidst  the  fires  of  persecution 
in  days  when  the  world  was  hostile  to  the  profession 
of  Christ’s  name  ; in  the  not  less  searching  discipline 
of  the  days  since  the  world  has  endeavoured  to  evac- 
uate the  name  of  Christ  of  its  meaning,  by  itself 
professing  it ; still  the  faithful  Christians  of  each 
age  have  “ set  to  their  seals  ” to  the  document  of 
God’s  offer.  And  now  in  your  turn  it  is  presented 
to  you.  There  is,  I think,  no  responsibility  which 
weighs  upon  us  more  heavily  as  we  pass  from  youth 
to  manhood,  from  the  position  of  children  to  that  of 
pctrents,  from  the  seat  of  the  taught  to  the  chair  of 
the  teacher,  than  the  responsibility  for  handing  on 
unimpaired  to  the  generation  beyond  us,  this  best 
heritage  of  our  human  life  — the  heritage  of  religious 
faith  and  practice  and  worship.  The  deepest  prayer 
we  pray  is  that  nothing  of  religious  truth  or  life  may 
prove  to  have  been  impaired  or  lost  in  its  passage 
through  us.  To  you,  then,  brethren,  to  you  more 
particularly  before  whom  life  yet  lies  in  opening 
promise,  the  document  of  God’s  offer  in  Jesus  Christ 
is  once  again  presented.  It  is  black  with  the  signa- 
tures, it  is  red  with  the  seals,  of  those  who,  in  the 
generations  that  are  passed  or  passing  away,  have 


CHRIST  OUR  EXAMPLE  AND  NEW  LIFE.  251 


given  in  their  assent  that  God  is  true,”  and  have 
handed  on  to  you  the  results  of  their  faithful  witness. 
You  cannot  evade  your  responsibilities  ; you  must  at 
the  last  issue  confess  or  deny;  you  must  sign  or 
repudiate.  Summon  then  to  your  aid  every  heavenly 
power  to  assist  you  in  the  great  surrender  which 
they  make  who,  having  steadily  in  view  all  that  is 
involved  in  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  ‘‘set  to  their  seals’^ 
for  time  and  for  eternity  “ that  God  is  true.” 


APPENDED  NOTES. 


LECTURE  I. 

Note  1.  See  p.  1. 

This  is  the  true  God  (1  St.  John,  v.  20).  The  word  “this” 
probably  refers  to  “ him  that  is  true,”  i.  e.  the  Father,  rather 
than  to  “ his  Son  Jesus  Christ  ” : but  (as  this  passage  among 
others  makes  plain)  to  know  the  Son  is,  according  to  St.  John, 
identical  with  knowing  the  Father,  so  inseparable  is  their  essen- 
tial unity,  and  to  be  in  the  Son  is  to  be  in  the  Father:  see 
Westcott,  Epistles  of  St.  John,  in  loc. 


Note  2.  See  p.  3. 

Exaggerated  devotion  to  Mary.  The  passage  from  St.  Alfonso, 
Glorie  di  Maria,  at  the  beginning,  is  as  follows : — ^ 

“Kings,  then,  should  be  employed  principally  in  works  of 
mercy,  but  not  so  as  to  forget  to  execute  justice  (when  neces- 
sary) on  the  guilty.  Not  so  with  Mary,  who,  though  a queen, 
is  not  a queen  of  justice,  intent  on  punishing  malefactors,  but 
a queen  of  mercy,  who  seeks  only  to  obtain  mercy  and  pardon 
for  sinners.  Hence  the  Church  wishes  that  we  expressly  call 
her  the  Queen  of  mercy.  John  Gerson,  the  great  Chancellor 
of  Paris,  commenting  on  the  words  of  David  “ these  two  things 

1 The  translation  is  that  of  the  Dublin  version  of  1866,  vol.  i.  p.  80^ 
But  the  passage  was  selected  originally  from  the  Italian  edition  recently 
published  in  Rome. 


253 


254  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


have  I heard,  that  power  belongeth  to  God,  and  mercy  to  Thee, 
O Lord  ” (Ps.  Ixi.  12),  said  that  the  Lord  has  divided  his  king- 
dom which  consisted  in  justice  and  mercy : the  kingdom  of  jus- 
tice he  has  reserved  to  himself,  and  the  kingdom  of  mercy  he 
has,  in  a certain  manner,  given  to  Mary,  ordaining  that  all  the 
mercies  which  he  dispenses  to  men  should  pass  through  her 
hands  and  be  dispensed  as  she  pleases.  Behold  the  words  of 
Gerson : “ Begnum  Dei  consistit  in  potestate  et  misericordia, 
potestate  Deo  remanente ; cessit  quodammodo  misericordiae  pars 
Matri  regnanti.’’  This  is  confirmed  by  St.  Thomas,  in  his  pref- 
ace to  the  Canonical  Epistles,  where  he  says  that  the  holy  Vir- 
gin, when  she  conceived  in  her  womb  and  brought  forth  the 
Divine  Word,  obtained  the  half  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  by 
becoming  the  queen  of  mercy,  as  Jesus  Christ  is  king  of  justice: 
“ Quando  filium  Dei  in  utero  concepit,  et  postmodum  peperit, 
dimidiam  partem  regni  Dei  impetravit,  ut  ipsa  sit  regina  miseri- 
cordiae, ut  Christus  est  rex  iustitiae.” 

“The  Eternal  Father  has  constituted  Jesus  Christ  king  of 
justice,  and  has,  therefore,  made  Him  universal  judge  of  the 
world : hence  the  prophet  has  said  ‘ Give  to  the  king  thy  judg- 
ment, O God,  and  to  the  king’s  son  thy  justice’  (Ps.  Ixxi.  2). 
On  this  passage  a learned  interpreter  has  said : ‘ O Lord,  thou 
hast  given  justice  to  thy  son,  because  thou  hast  given  thy 
mercy  to  the  mother  of  the  king.’  Hence  St.  Bonaventura  says : 
‘ O God,  give  thy  judgment  to  the  king  and  thy  mercy  to  the 
mother.’  Ernest,  Archbishop  of  Prague,  likewise  says  that  the 
Eternal  Father  has  given  to  the  Son  the  office  of  judging  and  of 
inflicting  punishment,  and  to  the  mother,  the  office  of  compas- 
sionating and  relieving  the  miserable : ‘ Pater  omne  judicium 
dedit  filio  et  omne  officium  misericordiae  dedit  matri.’  ” 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  passage  which  I have  quoted  in 
the  text  of  the  lecture,  is  a citation  from  St.  Thomas,  but  as  it 
perhaps  hardly  represents  St.  Thomas  fairly,  taken  as  it  is  out  of 
its  context,  I thought  it  better  to  make  St.  Alfonso  simply  re- 
sponsible for  it.  The  original  in  St.  Thomas  Praef,  in  Sept, 
Epp.  Caih,  is  a comment  on  Esther  v.  3 : “ So  Esther  drew  near 
and  touched  the  top  of  the  sceptre.  Then  said  the  king  unto  her, 


NOTES  2,  3. 


255 


“What  wilt  thou,  queen  Esther?  and  what  is  thy  request?  it 
shall  be  given  thee,  even  to  the  half  of  the  kingdom.”  “ Sum- 
mitatem  eius  virgae  virgo  beata  tetigit,  quando  filium  Dei  in 
utero  concepit  et  postmodum  peperit,  et  sic  dimidiam  partem 
regni  Dei  impetravit,  ut  ipsa  sit  regina  misericordiae  cuius 
filius  est  rex  iustitiae.”  The  other  quotations  I have  not 
verified. 

The  opening  chapter  of  The  Glories  of  Mary  strikes  the  key- 
note of  the  whole  book.  And  I do  not  think  it  is  open  to  doubt 
that  it  is  a book  profoundly  representative  of  current  Roman 
devotion  to  the  Blessed  Virgin.  Alfonso  de’  Liguori,  who  died 
in  1787,  was  finally  canonized  in  1839  and  declared  a “ Doctor 
of  the  Church”  in  1871. 

Note  3.  See  p.  8. 

The  place  of  Mohammed  and  of  the  Koran  in  Islam.  The 
articles  of  Prof.  Wellhausen  and  Prof.  Noldeke  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica  (s.  v.  Mohammedanism')  will  sulBSce  to  illustrate 
the  statements  in  the  text.  The  personality  of  the  Prophet,” 
says  Prof.  Wellhausen  (p.  548),  had  given  an  altogether  new 
impulse  to  a [monotheistic]  movement  already  in  existence ; 
that  was  all.  To  found  a new  religion  was  in  no  sense  Mo- 
hammed’s intention  ; what  he  sought  was  to  secure  among  his 
people  the  recognition  of  the  old  and  the  true.  He  preached  it 
to  the  Arabs  as  Moses  had  before  him  preached  to  the  Jews, 
and  Jesus  to  Christians  [i.  e.  as  Mohammed  imagined  Jesus]  ; 
it  was  all  one  and  the  same  religion  as  written  in  the  heavenly 
book.” 

The  monotheistic  movement,  prior  to  Mohammed,  Prof. 
Wellhausen  describes  as  ‘‘  the  religion  of  Abraham.” 

Again  Prof.  Noldeke  (pp.  597  ff.)  writes:  ‘‘The  Koran  is 
the  foundation  of  Islam  ...  To  the  faith  of  the  Moslems  the 
Koran  is  the  word  of  God,  and  such  also  is  the  claim  which  the 
book  itself  advances.  For  except  in  Sur.  1 . . . the  speaker 
throughout  is  God. 

“ The  rationale  of  revelation  is  explained  in  the  Koran  itself 


256  THE  INCARNATION  OP  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


as  follows : — in  heaven  is  the  original  text  the  mother  of  the 
book/  ‘a  concealed  book/  a well-guarded  tablet’).  By  a 
process  of  ‘ sending  down  ’ one  piece  after  another  was  com- 
municated to  the  prophet.  The  mediator  was  an  angel,  who  is 
called  sometimes  the  ‘ Spirit,’  sometimes  the  ‘ Holy  Spirit,’ 
and  at  a later  time  ‘ Gabriel.’  The  angel  dictates  the  revela- 
tion to  the  Prophet,  who  repeats  it  after  him,  and  afterwards 
proclaims  it  to  the  world  . . . Mohammed’s  transcendental  idea 
of  God  as  a Being  exalted  altogether  above  the  world,  ex- 
cludes the  thought  of  direct  intercourse  between  the  prophet 
and  God.” 

I am  only  concerned  to  justify  the  positions  — which  would 
not  be  disputed  — that  Mohammed  did  not  claim  to  be  more 
than  a prophet  and  that  the  importance  of  his  personality  in  his 
theological  system  is  simply  that  he  is  supposed  to  certificate 
the  reality  of  the  revelations  which  the  Koran  contains.  The 
sources  of  the  Koran,  and  the  moral  estimate  which  we  must 
form  of  Mohammed’s  character  and  work,  are  questions  which 
fall  outside  the  scope  of  this  note,  but  students  cannot  make 
a better  beginning  of  inquiry  than  with  the  articles  quoted 
above. 


Note  4.  See  p.  9. 

The  place  of  Gautama  in  Buddhism,  The  quotation  in  the 
text  will  be  found  in  The  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  ed.  Max 
Muller,  vol.  xi.  pp.  37-38.  In  Encycl,  Brit,  art.  Buddhism,  p. 
432,  Gautama  is  quoted  as  speaking  thus,  just  before  his  death : 
‘‘O  Subhadra!  I do  not  speak  to  you  of  things  I have  not 
experienced.  Since  I was  twenty-nine  years  old  till  now  I have 
striven  after  pure  and  perfect  wisdom,  and  following  the  good 
path  have  found  Nirvana.”  When  I have  passed  away  and 
am  no  longer  with  you,  do  not  think  that  the  Buddha  has  left  you 
and  is  not  still  in  your  midst.  You  have  my  words,  my  explan- 
ations of  the  deep  things  of  truth,  the  laws  I have  laid  down 
for  the  society ; let  them  be  your  guide ; the  Buddha  has  not 
left  you.” 


NOTES  3-5. 


25T 


On  the  meaning  of  Nirvana  I cannot  do  better  than  refer 
to  this  admirable  article  (T.  W.  Khys  Davids)  ; see  p.  433. 
‘‘  When  Nirvana  has  been  described  in  glowing  terms  as  the 
happy  seat ; the  excellent  eternal  place  of  bliss,  where  there  is 
no  more  death,  neither  decay ; the  end  of  suffering ; the  home 
of  peace  ...  it  has  been  supposed  by  some  European  scholars 
to  mean  a blissful  state,  in  which  the  soul  (!)  still  exists  in  an 
everlasting  trance.  There  can  however  now  be  no  longer  any 
doubt  on  the  point.  Buddhism  does  not  acknowledge  the 
existence  of  a soul  as  a thing  distinct  from  the  parts  and  powers 
of  man  which  are  dissolved  at  death,  and  the  Nirvana  of  Bud- 
dhism is  simply  extinction.” 

Professor  Max  Muller  asserts  strongly  that  Nirvana  means 
simply  extinction  and  that  ‘‘  Buddhism,  therefore,  if  tested  by 
its  own  canonical  books  cannot  be  freed  from  the  charge  of 
Nihilism.”  Chips  from  a German  Workshop,  i.  pp.  283-284. 
His  argument  against  this  having  represented  Buddha’s  own 
mind,  seems  to  be  chiefly  a priori,  see  1.  c.  pp.  234-235,  pp.  285 
f.,  and  The  Parables  of  Buddhagosha,  pp.  xxxix  ff.  Surely  he 
exaggerates  the  desire  for  immortality,  as  an  alternative  to 
extinction,  in  men  in  general,  especially  orientals. 

But  what  would  be  admitted  by  Professor  Max  Muller  is 
quite  sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of  my  argument.  The 
existence  of  one  who  has  attained  Parinirvana  is  not  a practical 
existence,  such  as  would  admit  of  personal  conscious  relations 
of  the  Buddha  to  his  disciples,  parallel  to  those  of  the  risen 
Jesus  to  His  Church.  Nor  are  such  relations  possible  in  a 
religion  without  a God. 


Note  5.  See  p.  18. 

Aut  Pens  aut  homo  non  bonus.  Dr.  Latham,  Pastor  Pasiorum 
(Cambridge,  1890),  pp.  273  ff.,  has  called  the  attention  of 
students  again  to  the  way  in  which  Jesus  Christ  trained  His 
disciples  to  trust  Himself  with  an  absolute  trust  — first  in  His 
presence,  then  in  His  temporary  absences,  finally  under  con- 


258  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


ditions  of  His  spiritual  preseuce,  Tvlien  He  had  passed  into  the 
unseen  world. 

The  argument  to  the  Divinity  of  Christ  from  His  claim,  has 
been  recently  put  afresh,  as  part  of  a personal  experience,  in 
An  Appeal  to  Unitarians,  by  ‘‘A  Convert  from  Unitarianism  ” 
(Longmans,  1890),  pp.  41-51.  “If  it  is  not  superhuman 
authority  that  speaks  to  us  here,  it  is  surely  superhuman  arro- 
gance.” It  has,  however,  been  chiefly  brought  home  to  men’s 
minds,  in  recent  times,  by  Pere  Lacordaire  {Jesus  Christ,  Conf. 
1)  and  Dr.  Liddon. 

Dr.  Liddon  did  not  himself  know,  and  I cannot  ascertain,  the 
source  of  the  epigrammatic  summary  of  the  argument  “aut 
Dens  aut  homo  non  bonus.”  In  substance  the  argument  ap- 
pears from  early  days : e.  g.  in  Victorinus  Afer,  writing  against 
Candidus  the  Arian  : “haec  dicens  Deus  fuit,  si  mentitus  non 
est : si  autem  mentitus  est,  non  opus  Dei  omnimodis  perfec- 
tum.”  De,  Gener.  i.  p.  1020  C (Migne). 


Note  6.  See  p.  25. 

Pharisaic  Ehionites,  This  was  a sect  of  Judaic  Christians 
mentioned  by  Irenaeus  (c.  Haer,  i.  26,  2),  who  retained  the  char- 
acteristics of  St.  Paul’s  opponents  in  Galatia,  “ who  were  cir- 
cumcised and  persevered  in  observing  the  law  and  maintaining 
a Jewish  mode  of  life.”  To  them,  Tertullian  tells  us,  Jesus 
was  “ nothing  more  than  a Solomon  or  a Jonah  ” {de  Car.  Chr. 
18).  He  was  a man  naturally  born,  but  pre-eminently  justified 
by  his  unique  observance  of  the  law,  and,  therefore,  made  the 
Christ  of  God  (Hippolytus,  Ref.  haer.  vii.  34).  Earlier  than 
this  definitely  heretical  sect,  we  find  traces  of  an  “ un theological  ” 
Jewish  Christianity,  such  as  appears  in  the  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  and  would  be  exemplified  probably  by  the 
Jewish  Christians,  to  whom  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was 
written,  to  lift  them  into  a fuller  perception  of  the  meaning  of 
the  Incarnation  (Heb.  vi.  1,  2).  Earlier  still,  we  have  the 
Judaizers  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  who  loved  their  old 


NOTES  5-7. 


259 


Jewish,  more  than  their  new  Christian,  privileges,  and  failed  to 
grasp  the  greatness  of  the  change  involved  in  the  coming  of  the 
Christ.  The  point  here  insisted  upon  is  simply  that  this  “ un- 
theological  ” Christianity  was  unimportant,  unprogressive  and 
barren,  as  Church  history  bears  witness,  cf.  Stanton,  Jewish  and 
Chr,  Messiah  (Clark,  Edin.  1886),  pp.  166-7.  The  view  that 
these  Ebionites  represented  the  Christianity  of  the  original 
Apostles  is  considered  Lect.  iv.  p.  91,  and  app.  note  B. 


Note  7.  See  p.  27. 

The  need  of  a clear  moral  ideal.  See  Natural  Religion,  by  the 
author  of  Ecce  Homo  (Macmillan,  1891),  p.  128.  “ Look,  then, 

how  the  English  people  treat  their  children.  Try  and  discover 
from  the  way  they  train  them,  from  the  education  they  give 
them,  what  they  wish  them  to  be.  They  have  ceased,  almost 
consciously  ceased,  to  have  any  ideal  at  all.  Traces  may  still 
be  observed  of  an  old  ideal  not  quite  forgotten : here  and  there 
a vague  notion  of  instilling  hardihood,  a really  decided  wish  to 
teach  frankness  and  honesty,  and,  in  a large  class,  also  good 
manners;  but  these  after  all  are  negative  virtues.  What  do 
they  wish  their  children  to  aim  at?  What  pursuits  do  they 
desire  for  them  ? Except  that  when  they  grow  up  they  are  to 
make  or  have  a livelihood,  and  take  a satisfactory  position  in 
society,  and  in  the  meanwhile  that  it  would  be  hard  for  them 
not  to  enjoy  themselves  heartily,  most  parents  would  be  puzzled 
to  say  what  they  wish  for  their  children.  And,  whatever  they 
wish,  they  wish  so  languidly  that  they  entrust  the  realization  of 
it  almost  entirely  to  strangers,  being  themselves,  so  they  say  — 
and,  indeed,  the  Philistine  or  irreligious  person  always  is  — 
much  engaged.  The  parent,  from  sheer  embarrassment  and 
want  of  an  ideal,  has  in  a manner  abdicated,  and  it  has  become 
necessary  to  set  apart  a special  class  for  the  cultivation  of 
parental  feelings  and  duties.  The  modern  schoolmaster  should 
change  his  name,  for  he  has  become  a kind  of  standing  or  pro- 
fessional parent.” 


260  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


This  sense  of  the  need  of  a definite  moral  standard,  whethet 
in  the  education  of  children,  or  in  society  as  a whole,  is  no 
doubt  one  of  the  most  powerful  motives  appealing  to  men,  who 
are  not  Christians  in  positive  belief,  to  keep  within  the  area  of 
the  Christian  Church,  and  pay  homage  to  its  moral  power. 

We  find  men  also,  who  do  not  call  themselves  Christians,  like 
John  Stuart  Mill,  acknowledging  the  moral  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ  on  more  personal  grounds.  See  Three  Essays  on  Theism 
(Longmans,  1874),  p.  255 : “ Religion  cannot  be  said  to  have 
made  a bad  choice  in  pitching  on  this  man  as  the  ideal  repre- 
sentative and  guide  of  humanity;  nor  even  now  would  it  be 
easy,  even  for  an  unbeliever,  to  find  a better  translation  of  the 
rule  of  virtue  from  the  abstract  into  the  concrete,  than  to 
endeavour  so  to  live  that  Christ  would  approve  our  life.”  Dr. 
Pusey^s  comment  on  this  is,  ‘‘If  men  would  set  this  before 
themselves,  there  would  be  fewer  unbelievers.”  {University 
Sermons,  1864-1879,  “ God  and  human  independence,”  p.  10, 
note  1.) 

In  my  lecture,  however,  I was  thinking  chiefly  of  men  who 
would  go  further  than  this  — of  men,  and  they  are  not  a few, 
who  call  themselves  Christians  and  proclaim  the  moral  sove- 
reignty of  Christ,  while  all  the  while  they  deprecate  theology. 


LECTURE  II. 

Note  8.  See  p.  32. 

The  common  ground  of  Science  and  Christianity  in  a belief  in 
Nature,  Cf.  Natural  Religion,  pp.  22,  23.  “Nature,  according 
to  all  systems  of  Christian  theology,  is  God’s  ordinance. 
Whether  with  Science  you  stop  short  at  Nature,  or  with  Chris- 
tianity believe  in  a God  who  is  the  author  of  Nature,  in  either 
case  Nature  is  divine,  for  it  is  either  God  or  the  work  of  God. 
This  whole  domain  is  common  to  science  and  theology.  When 
theology  says.  Let  us  give  up  the  wisdom  of  men  and  listen  to 
the  voice  of  God,  and  when  science  says,  Let  us  give  up  human 


NOTES  7-9. 


261 


authority  and  hollow  a priori  knowledge  and  let  us  listen  to 
Nature,  they  are  agreed  to  the  whole  extent  of  the  narrower 
proposition,  e.  theology  ought  to  admit  all  that  science  says, 
though  science  admits  only  a part  of  what  theology  says. 
Theology  cannot  say  the  laws  of  Nature  are  not  divine:  all  it 
can  say  is,  they  are  not  the  most  important  of  the  divine  laws. 
Perhaps  not,  but  they  gain  an  importance  from  the  fact  that 
they  are  laws  upon  which  all  can  agree.  Making  the  largest 
allowance  for  discoveries  about  which  science  may  be  too  confi- 
dent, there  remains  a vast  mass  of  natural  knowledge  which  no 
one  questions.  This  to  the  Christian  is  so  much  knowledge 
about  God,  and  he  ought  to  exult  quite  as  much  as  the  man  of 
science  in  the  rigorous  method  by  which  it  has  been  separated 
from  the  human  prejudice  and  hasty  ingenuity  and  delusive 
rhetoric  or  poetry,  which  might  have  adulterated  it.  By  this 
means  we  have  been  enabled  to  hear  a voice  which  is  unmis- 
takably God’s.” 

See  also  p.  10.  Thus  the  religious  view  and  the  scientific 
view  of  the  Universe,  which  are  thought  to  be  so  opposite, 
agree  in  this  important  point.  Both  protest  earnestly  against 
human  wisdom.  Both  wait  for  a message  which  is  to  come  to 
them  from  without.  Religion  says,  ‘Let  man  be  silent,  and 
listen  when  God  speaks.’  Science  says,  ‘ Let  us  interrogate 
Nature,  and  let  us  be  sure  that  the  answer  we  get  is  really 
Nature’s,  and  not  a mere  echo  of  our  own  voice.’  Now  whether 
or  not  religion  and  science  agree  in  what  they  recommend,  it  is 
evident  that  they  agree  in  what  they  denounce.  They  agree  in 
denouncing  that  pride  of  the  human  intellect  which  supposes  it 
knows  everything,  which  is  not  passive  enough  in  the  presence 
of  reality,  but  deceives  itself  with  pompous  words  instead  of 
things,  and  with  flattering  eloquence  instead  of  sober  truth.” 

Note  9.  See  p.  34. 

Mind  from  the  point  of  view  of  merely  physical  science*  The 
following  extract  from  an  Address  in  Medicine  by  J.  Hughlings 
Jackson,  M.D.,  On  the  Comparative  Study  of  Diseases  of  the  Ner^ 


262  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


vous  System  (see  The  British  Medical  Journal,  Aug.  17,  1889,  p. 
358),  contains  a valuable  statement.  ‘‘Function  is  a physi- 
ological term,  and  it  is,  I submit,  improper  to  speak  of  states 
of  consciousness  as  being  ‘ functions  of  the  brain  ’ ; we  can 
only  say  that  states  of  consciousness  attend  functions  of  the 
brain,  of  those  parts  of  it,  at  least,  which  are  the  highest  cere- 
bral centres.  We  can  only  affirm  concomitance,  and  why  imma- 
terial processes  always  go  along  with  the  material  processes  of 

our  brains  is,  as  yet  at  any  rate,  inexplicable Here  is 

an  express  repudiation  of  any  intention  on  my  part  to  attempt 
to  explain  psychical  states  by  anatomico-physiological  states. 
It  is  not  the  mind,  but  the  physical  basis  of  mind,  which  is  a 
product  of  evolution;  it  is  the  organ  of  mind,  not  the  mind, 
which,  being  an  evolution  out  of  the  rest  of  the  body,  is  repre- 
sentative of  it.  When  tracing  an  evolutionary  ascent  from  the 
muscles  of  the  hand  to  the  highest  cerebral  centres,  nothing  was 
said  even  remotely  implying  that  the  most  complex,  etc.,  repre- 
sentation of  these  muscles  became,  or  became  part  of,  ideas; 
it  was  only  said  that  this  most  complex,  etc.,  representation 
was  part  of  the  physical  basis  of  those  ideas.  I know  of  no 
evolutionist  of  repute  who  has  attempted  the  marvellous  feat  of 
‘getting  the  mind  out  of  the  body.’  For  my  part,  I am  con- 
tent, with  ‘ getting  ’ the  organ  of  mind  out  of  the  rest  of  the 
body.” 


Note  10.  See  p.  35. 

Theistic  arguments » For  the  arguments  summarized  in  the 

lecture,  I may  give  the  following  references. 

(1)  For  the  metaphysical  argument,  see  T.  H.  Green,  Prole- 
gomena to  Ethics  (Clar.  Press,  1883),  Book  I.  Chapter  i. 

(2)  For  the  “argument  from  design,”  as  affected  by  Dar- 
winism, see  J.  Le  Conte,  Evolution  and  its  Relation  to  Religious 
Thought  (Chapman  & Hall,  1888),  Part  III.,  or  Aubrey  Moore, 
Science  and  the  Faith  (Kegan  Paul,  1889),  Introduction. 

(3)  For  the  “argument  from  beauty,”  see  Mozley,  University 
Sermons  (Longmans,  1876),  Serm.  6. 


NOTES  9-12. 


263 


(4)  For  the  ethical  argument,  see  Martineau,  Types  of  Ethical 
Theory  (Clar.  Press,  1885),  Part  II.  Bk.  II.  Branch  I. 

(5)  For  the  personality  of  God,  see  Lotze,  Microcosmus  (Eng, 
trans.,  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1886),  Book  IX.  Cap.  4 : also  Seth, 
Hegelianism  and  Personality  (Blackwood,  Edinburgh,  1887),  pp. 
214-224. 

Cf.  also,  in  these  lectures,  p.  117. 

The  recent  anonymous  work.  The  Riddles  of  the  Sphinx 
(Swan  Sonnenschein,  1891),  contains,  it  seems  to  me,  a great 
deal  of  fresh  and  valuable  thought  on  subjects  (1)  and  (5). 
This  can  be  adopted  without  reference  to  some  strange  conclu- 
sions at  which  the  book  arrives. 

Note  11,  See  p.  39. 

Moral  life  supernatural.  I am  anxious  not  to  appear  to 
assume  anything  in  this  connection  as  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  moral  life  was  developed.  I would  only  assert 
that,  considered  as  a developed  product,  it  cannot  be  explained 
by  what  lies  below  it.  I do  not  want  more  than  would,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Hughlings  Jackson  (see  above.  Note  9),  be  granted 
me  by  all  ‘‘  evolutionists  of  repute in  regard  to  mental  phe- 
nomena generally. 

Note  12.  See  p.  41. 

Mr.  Darwin*s  account  of  his  own  mind.  See  Life  and  Letters  of 
Charles  Darwin  (Murray,  1887),  vol.  i.  p.  100. 

“ I have  said  that  in  one  respect  my  mind  has  changed  during 
the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years.  Up  to  the  age  of  thirty,  or 
beyond  it,  poetry  of  many  kinds,  such  as  the  works  of  Milton, 
Gray,  Byron,  Wordsworth,  Coleridge,  and  Shelley,  gave  me 
great  pleasure,  and  even  as  a schoolboy  I took  intense  delight 
in  Shakespeare,  especially  in  the  historical  plays.  I have  also 
said  that  formerly  pictures  gave  me  considerable,  and  music 
very  great  delight.  But  now  for  many  years  I cannot  endure 
to  read  a line  of  poetry.  I have  tried  lately  to  read  Shakespeare, 
and  found  it  so  intolerably  dull  that  it  nauseated  me.  I have 


264  THE  IKCABNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


also  almost  lost  my  taste  for  pictures  or  music.  Music  generally 
sets  me  thinking  too  energetically  on  what  I have  been  at  work 
on,  instead  of  giving  me  pleasure.  I retain  some  taste  for  fine 
scenery,  but  it  does  not  cause  me  the  exquisite  delight  which  it 
formerly  did.  On  the  other  hand,  novels  which  are  works  of 
the  imagination,  though  not  of  a very  high  order,  have  been  for 
years  a wonderful  relief  and  pleasure  to  me,  and  I often  bless 
all  novelists.  A surprising  number  have  been  read  aloud  to  me, 
and  I like  all  if  moderately  good,  and  if  they  do  not  end  un- 
happily — against  which  a law  ought  to  be  passed.  A novel, 
according  to  my  taste,  does  not  come  into  the  first  class  unless 
it  contains  some  person  whom  one  can  thoroughly  love,  and  if 
a pretty  woman  all  the  better. 

“This  curious  and  lamentable  loss  of  the  higher  aesthetic 
tastes  is  all  the  odder,  as  books  on  history,  biographies,  and 
travels  (independently  of  any  scientific  facts  which  they  may 
contain),  and  essays  on  all  sorts  of  subjects  interest  me  as  much 
as  ever  they  did.  My  mind  seems  to  have  become  a kind  of 
machine  for  grinding  general  laws  out  of  large  collections  of 
facts,  but  why  this  should  have  caused  the  atrophy  of  that  part 
of  the  brain  alone,  on  which  the  higher  tastes  depend,  I cannot 
conceive.  A man  with  a mind  more  highly  organized  or  better 
constituted  than  mine,  would  not,  I suppose,  have  thus  suffered ; 
and  if  I had  to  live  my  life  again,  I would  have  made  a rule  to 
read  some  poetry  and  listen  to  some  music  at  least  once  every 
week ; for  perhaps  the  parts  of  my  brain  now  atrophied  would 
thus  have  been  kept  active  through  use.  The  loss  of  these 
tastes  is  a loss  of  happiness,  and  may  possibly  be  injurious  to 
the  intellect,  and  more  probably  to  the  moral  character,  by 
enfeebling  the  emotional  part  of  our  nature.” 

Note  13.  See  p.  41. 

The  unity  of  nature  and  grace”  in  the  best  Theology* 
Hoping  to  find  another  opportunity  of  illustrating  at  greater 
length  the  statements  of  the  text,  I would  content  myself  here 
with  the  following  references. 


NOTES  12-14. 


265 


The  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  will  be  found  chiefly  in 
St.  John’s  Gospel  i.  1-14  (cf.  the  commentaries  of  Godet  or 
Westcott),  St.  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  i.  13-20  (cf. 
Lightfoot’s  commentary),  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  i. 
1-3  (cf.  Westcott ’s  commentary). 

On  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  the  following  references  will 
be  found  to  justify  the  statements  of  the  text.  (1)  St.  Athana- 
sius, De  Incarn.  41  ; St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Catech.  Magna  25. 
Cf.  Humboldt,  Cosmos  (Eng.  trans.  Longman  and  Murray,  1848) 
ii.  pp.  25-30 ; Mgr.  Landriot,  Le  Christ  de  la  tradition  (Paris, 
1888)  i.  pp.  191  fl. 

(2)  St.  Greg.  Thaumat.  Panegyr,  8 ; St.  Athan.  C.  Gentes 
35-44 ; St.  Greg.  Nyss.  Catech,  Mag.  28.  On  law  in  miracles 
see  St.  Augustine,  C.  Faust,  xxvi.  3 ; Macarius  Magnes,  Apo- 
critica  iii.  25. 

(3)  St.  Justin,  Apol.  i.  46 ; St.  Irenseus,  iv.  6.  5,  7 ; Origen 
in  Psalm  xi.  6. 


Note  14.  See  p.  49. 

The  rationale  of  miracles.  The  former  part  of  the  argument 
in  the  text,  pp.  45-46,  will  be  found  stated  by  H.  S.  Holland  in 
Christ  or  Ecclesiastes  (Longmans,  1888)  Sermon  3.  St.  Augus- 
tine’s language-,  referred  to  in  the  last  note,  is  well  known. 

‘‘We  may,  without  incongruity,  say  that  God  does  in  a man- 
ner contrary  to  nature  what  he  does  contrary  to  nature  as  we 
know  it.  For  what  we  mean  by  ‘ nature  ’ is  this  well-known 
and  customary  order,  and  it  is  when  God  does  anything  con- 
trary to  this  that  His  actions  are  called  miracles  or  wonders. 
But  as  for  that  supreme  law  of  nature,  which  is  beyond  the 
perception  of  men,  either  because  they  are  impious  or  because 
they  are  still  weak  in  knowledge  — against  this  God  no  more 
acts  than  He  acts  against  Himself.  And  God’s  spiritual  and 
rational  creatures,  amongst  whom  are  men,  the  more  they 
become  participators  in  that  immutable  law  and  light,  the  more 
clearly  they  can  see  what  can  happen  and  what  cannot ; and 
the  further  off,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  [from  that  divine 


266  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


law  and  light],  so  much  the  more  are  they  astonished  at  what 
they  are  not  accustomed  to,  in  proportion  as  they  are  blind  to 
what  is  coming.” 

If  we  add  to  the  thought  here  expressed  the  additional 
thought,  which  we  find  both  in  St.  Athanasius  and  St.  Augus- 
tine, that  the  miracles  or  exceptional  actions  of  God  are  to  be 
accounted  for  by  man’s  blindness  to  Him  in  His  normal 
method,  and  are  thus  condescensions  to  human  sin  and  weak- 
ness, we  have  before  us  the  best  ancient  rationale  of  miracles. 

Archbishop  Trench,  in  the  introductory  essay  to  his  work  on 
Miracles,  gives  an  admirable  view  of  the  various  theories  on  the 
subject,  held  at  different  times  in  the  Christian  Church. 


Note  15.  See  p.  58. 

Prof*  Huxley  on  scientific  objections  to  Christianity, 

Prof.  Huxley  has  kindly  allowed  me  to  quote  the  following 
words  from  a private  letter  addressed  by  him  to  the  late  Dean 
of  Wells,  April  27, 1877.  ‘‘  I have  not  the  slightest  objection  to 
offer  h priori  to  all  the  propositions  in  the  three  creeds.  The 
mysteries  of  the  Church  are  child’s  play  compared  with  the 
mysteries  of  nature.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  more 
puzzling  than  the  necessary  antinomies  of  physical  speculation ; 
virgin  procreation  and  resuscitation  from  apparent  death  are 
ordinary  phenomena  for  the  naturalist.  It  would  be  a great 
error  therefore  to  suppose  that  the  Agnostic  rejects  Theology 
because  of  its  puzzles  and  wonders.  He  rejects  it  simply 
because  in  his  judgment  there  would  be  no  evidence  sufficient 
to  warrant  the  theological  propositions,  even  if  they  related  to 
the  commonest  and  most  obvious  every-day  propositions.” 

This  last  sentence  seems  to  me  so  strongly  opposed  to  the 
facts  of  the  case  that  one  cannot  but  believe  that,  if  scientific 
men  generally  adopt  Prof.  Huxley’s  line,  the  opposition  to 
the  Christian  religion  on  the  side  of  science  may  be  greatly 
reduced. 


NOTES  14-17. 


267 


LECTUEE  III. 

Note  16.  See  p.  60. 

Hume's  “ Canon”  See  his  Essays  (edd.  Green  and  Grose : 
Longmans,  1875),  voL  ii.  p.  94.  ‘‘The  plain  consequence  is 
(and  it  is  a general  maxim  worthy  of  our  attention),  ‘ That  no 
testimony  is  sufficient  to  establish  a miracle,  unless  the  testi- 
mony be  of  such  a kind,  that  its  falsehood  would  be  more  mi- 
raculous, than  the  fact,  which  it  endeavours  to  establish : And 
even  in  that  case  there  is  a mutual  destruction  of  arguments, 
and  the  superior  only  gives  us  an  assurance  suitable  to  that 
degree  of  force,  which  remains,  after  deducting  the  inferior.’ 
When  any  one  tells  me  that  he  saw  a dead  man  restored  to  life, 
I immediately  consider  with  myself  whether  it  be  more  probable 
that  this  person  should  either  deceive  or  be  deceived,  or  that 
the  fact,  which  he  relates,  should  really  have  happened.  I 
weigh  the  one  miracle  against  the  other ; and  according  to  the 
superiority,  which  I discover,  I pronounce  my  decision,  and 
always  reject  the  greater  miracle.  If  the  falsehood  of  his  testi- 
mony would  be  more  miraculous  than  the  event  which  he  re- 
lates, then,  and  not  till  then,  can  he  pretend  to  command  my 
belief  or  opinion.” 

I ought  to  state  that  in  the  imaginary  case  which  I have 
taken  from  Mary  Barton  the  evidence  for  the  mermaid  is  not 
exactly  the  same  as  that  for  the  flying-fish. 


Note  17.  See  p.  61. 

A priori  tendencies  in  Dr.  Martineau  and  Card.  Newman. 
The  reference  is  of  course : — 

(1)  To  Dr.  Martineau’s  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion  (Long- 
mans, 1890),  the  latter  part  of  which  (b.  iv.)  is  a criticism  of 
the  Gospel  narrative. 


268  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OP  GOD. 


(2)  To  Card.  Newman’s  Two  Essays  on  Biblical  and  on 
Ecclesiastical  Miracles  (Longmans,  1885).  I must  add  that  my 
lecture  was  written,  and  perhaps  preached,  before  the  appear- 
ance of  Dr.  Abbott’s  Philomythus^  with  the  tone  and  spirit  of 
which  one  cannot  but  disclaim  sympathy. 


Note  18.  See  p.  64. 

The  Witness  of  St.  PauVs  Epistles.  M.  Renan  called  the 
epistles  named  in  the  text  “ undisputed  and  indisputable.”  In 
the  lecture,  as  delivered,  they  were  described  as  “practically 
undisputed.”  They  have,  however,  been  recently  disputed, 
with  utterly  perverse  and  untenable  arguments,  by  a school  of 
writers  headed  by  Loman  in  Holland  and  Steck  in  Switzer- 
land. 

The  witness  of  these  Epistles,  as  summarized  in  the  text,  will 
be  found  in  the  following  passages ; — Rom.  i.  7,  1 Cor.  i.  3, 
2 Cor.  xiii.  14  etc.  (the  co-ordination  of  Christ  with  the  Father), 
Rom.  X.  9-14  (Christ,  as  Lord,  = the  Jehovah  of  the  O.  T. : cf. 
1 Cor.  i.  2),  Rom.  ix.  5 (Christ  called  “ God  over  all  ” : for 
Pfleiderer’s  statement  on  this  subject  see  his  Hihhert  Lectures^ 
Williams  & Norgate,  1885,  p.  55),  1 Cor.  viii.  6 (Christ  in  crea- 
tion), 1 Cor.  X.  4 (Christ  with  the  Jews  in  the  wilderness),  Rom. 
viii.  3,  Gal.  iv.  4 (God’s  own  Son,  incarnate),  1 Cor.  xv.  47  (from 
heaven),  2 Cor.  viii.  9 (by  self -beggary),  Rom.  i.  3-4  (disclosing 
His  Godhead  through  His  manhood).  Cf.  Prof.  Sanday’s  What 
the  first  Christians  thought  about  Christ  (Oxford  House  Papers, 
series  1 : Longmans,  1890). 

St.  Paul’s  appeal  to  an  earlier  narrative  is  in  1 Cor.  xi.  23, 
XV.  3.  For  the  record  of  appearances  (1  Cor.  xv.  5-7),  cf.  St. 
Luke  xxiv.  34-36,  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  16-20,  Acts  i.  14  (where 
James  is  already  among  the  disciples).  Acts  i.  6-11.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  St.  Luke’s  Gospel  and  the  Acts  constitute 
two  parts  of  the  same  work.  This  makes  it,  I think,  absurd  to 
suggest  that  the  “forty  days”  mentioned  in  Acts  i.  3 are 
excluded  in  St.  Luke  xxiv. 


NOTES  17-21. 


269 


Note  19.  See  p.  73. 

Synoptic  Gospels.  In  one  lecture  it  is  impossible  to  do  more 
than  touch  upon  the  criticism  of  these  books.  Among  the  most 
suggestive  recent  contributions  to  the  subject,  I may  refer  to 
Dr.  Paul  Ewald’s  Das  Hauptprohlem  des  Evangelien-frage  (Leip- 
zig, 1890),  Mr.  Wright^s  The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels 
(Macmillan,  1890),  Dr.  Sanday  in  Expositor,  1891,  Jan.-May. 
The  external  evidence  for  the  Gospels  has  been  admirably  re- 
stated for  the  general  reader  by  Dr.  Dale,  The  Living  Christ  and 
the  Four  Gospels  (Hodder  & Stoughton,  1890). 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  mention  Dr.  Salmon’s  Introduction 
to  the  New  Testament  (Murray,  1st  edit.  1885),  or  Bp.  Lightfoot’s 
Essays  on  “ Supernatural  Religion (Macmillan,  1889). 

I believe  that  in  taking  St.  Mark’s  Gospel,  or  the  main  sub- 
stance of  St.  Mark’s  Gospel,  as  the  starting-point,  I am  doing 
what  will  commend  itself  to  almost  all  inquirers. 

It  is  important  to  emphasize,  at  this  point,  that  the  evidential 
use  of  the  Gospels,  as  merely  historical  documents,  is  to  be  kept 
distinct  from  the  (logically)  subsequent  use  of  them  in  the 
Church  (see  pp.  188-9)  as  inspired  records. 

Note  20.  See  p.  74. 

St  John's  Gospel.  The  reference  in  the  text  is  to  Archdeacon 
Watkins’  Bampton  Lectures,  1890  (Murray,  1890),  on  “Modern 
Criticism  considered  in  its  relation  to  the  Fourth  Gospel.”  In 
the  introductions  to  Prof.  Godet’s  and  Dr.  Westcott’s  commenta. 
ries  on  St.  John’s  Gospel,  and  in  Prof.  Sunday’s  Authorship  and 
Historical  Character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  (Macmillan,  1872),  the 
student  will  find  all  reasonable  doubts  as  to  its  authorship  set 
at  rest. 

Note  21.  See  p.  76. 

The  “ Logos.”  In  regard  to  this  idea  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that,  as  found  in  some  of  the  fathers,  e.  g.  Justin  and  the  Alex- 
andrians, it  has  much  closer  aflSnities  to  Greek  philosophy  than 
it  has  in  St.  John. 


270  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


Note  22.  See  p.  78. 

Our  Lord*s  discourses  in  St,  John,  Dr.  Plummer  (Cam6.  G. 
T,  for  Schools,  St,  John,  1882,  p.  100,  as  cited  by  Watkins)  gives 
the  following  interesting  extract  from  a letter  written  by  Car- 
dinal Newman  on  July  15,  1878  : — 

“Every  one  writes  in  his  own  style.  St.  John  gives  our 
Lord’s  meaning  in  his  own  way.  At  that  time  the  third  person 
was  not  so  commonly  used  in  history  as  now.  When  a reporter 
gives  one  of  Gladstone’s  speeches  in  the  newspaper,  if  he  uses 
the  first  person,  I understand  not  only  the  matter,  but  the  style, 
the  words,  to  be  Gladstone’s : when  the  third,  I consider  the 
style,  etc.,  to  be  the  reporter’s  own.  But  in  ancient  times  this 
distinction  was  not  made.  Thucydides  uses  the  dramatic 
method,  yet  Spartan  and  Athenian  speak  in  Thucydidean  Greek. 
And  so  every  clause  of  our  Lord’s  speeches  in  St.  John  may  be 
in  St.  John’s  Greek;  yet  every  clause  may  contain  the  matter 
which  our  Lord  spoke  in  Aramaic.  Again,  St.  John  might  and 
did  select  or  condense  (as  being  inspired  for  that  purpose)  the 
matter  of  our  Lord’s  discourses,  as  that  with  Nicodemus,  and 
thereby  the  wording  might  be  St.  John’s,  though  the  matter 
might  still  be  our  Lord’s.” 

Note  23.  See  p.  82. 

The  apostles  as  witnesses.  Dr.  Latham  {Pastor  Pastor um,  pp. 
241  ff.),  describes  their  qualifications  with  admirable  freshness 
and  truth. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  each  apostle  was  in  a peculiar 
sense  a witness  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  On  this  event  the 
chief  stress  was  laid  (Acts  i.  3,  22,  1 Cor.  xv.  5,  8).  This  may 
in  part  account  for  the  fragmentariness  and  independence  of  the 
various  accounts  we  have  of  the  appearances.  The  summary  in 
1 Cor.  XV.  5-7  is  the  nearest  approach  to  a central  record  of 
them.  The  “ I received  ” in  ver.  3 probably  means  that  this  was 
the  account  of  the  appearances  given  to  St.  Paul  at  his  con- 
version, by  those  who  were  in  Christ  before  him. 


NOTES  22-24. 


271 


Note  24.  See  p.  86. 

The  narratives  of  the  Nativity  and  Infancy,  A full  defence 
of  these  narratives  will  be  found  in  Godet’s  commentary  on  St. 
Luke’s  Gospel.  Great  stress  has  recently  been  laid  on  resem- 
blances, real  and  supposed,  between  the  ‘‘  birth-stories  ” of 
Jesus  Christ  and  of  Buddha.  In  regard  to  such  resemblances, 
it  may  be  remarked  that 

(1)  We  may  set  aside  as  contrary  to  all  the  evidence  any  idea 
of  Buddhist  influence  on  the  Gospel  narrative. 

(2)  We  may  set  aside  as  unsupported  by  evidence  the  idea  of 
a Christian  influence  on  later  Buddhist  tradition.  This  leaves 
us  in  the  position  of  regarding  the  Christian  and  the  Buddhist 
narratives  as  independent  growths. 

(3)  It  may  be  remarked  that  no  claim  to  an  historical  charac- 
ter can  be  put  in,  on  ground  of  evidence,  for  the  Buddhist 
miracles,  nor  can  the  Buddhist  scriptures  be  put  in  any  sort  of 
competition  as  historical  documents  with  our  Gospels.  The 
question,  therefore,  is  simply  whether  the  resemblance  of  the 
Buddhist  legend  to  our  Gospels  indicates  so  strong  a human 
tendency  to  imagine  a certain  class  of  incidents  under  certain 
circumstances  as  to  invalidate  the  historical  evidence  for  the  actual 
occurrence  of  such  incidents  in  any  case. 

The  solution  of  this  question  depends  on  (a)  the  strength  of 
the  historical  evidence  in  the  particular  case ; (5)  the  closeness 
of  the  resemblance  in  the  Buddhist  legend.  As  to  (a)  I believe 
that  close  and  unprejudiced  study  will  give  an  increasing  con- 
fidence in  the  trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels  and  their  freedom 
from  mere  legend.  As  to  (&)  I believe  that  the  widespread 
impression  of  resemblance  is  due  to  such  works  as  The  Light  of 
Asia  — works  which  the  Germans  would  describe  as  tendenziose 
— and  not  to  a study  of  the  Buddhist  books  which  have  been 
translated  for  us.  Resemblances  exist,  no  doubt  — in  some 
cases  remarkable  resemblances — but  not  resemblances  which 
create  any  serious  obstacle  to  the  historical  character  of  our 
Christian  records.  The  subject  is  dealt  with  at  length,  and,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  with  fairness,  in  Kellogg’s  Light  of  Asia  and 
Light  of  the  World  (Macmillan,  1885),  cc.  ii-iv. 


272  THE  IKCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


LECTUEE  IV. 

Note  25.  See  p.  89. 

The  relation  of  dogmas  to  original  Christianity,  On  the 
ancient  and  Anglican  idea  I may  refer  to  what  is  said  at 
greater  length  in  Roman  Catholic  Claims  (3rd  ed.  Longmans, 
1890),  cc.  iii,  iv:  also  to  an  interesting  letter  of  Cardinal  New- 
man, written  to  E.  H.  Fronde  in  1835.  See  Life  and  Corre- 
spondence, by  Anne  Mozley  (Longmans,  1891),  ii.  pp.  126-7. 
“ The  more  I read  of  Athanasius,  Theodore t,  etc.,  the  more  I see 
the  ancients  do  make  the  Scriptures  the  basis  of  their  belief. 
The  only  question  is  would  they  have  done  so  in  another  point 
beside  the  ^eoXoyta  which  happened  in  the  early  ages  to  be  in 
discussion  ? I incline  to  say  the  creed  is  the  faith  necessary  to 
salvation  as  well  as  to  Church  communion,  and  to  maintain 
that  Scripture  according  to  the  Fathers  is  the  authentic  record 
and  document  of  this  faith  ....  Now  this  OeoXoyCa,  I say,  the 
Fathers  do  certainly  rest  on  Scripture  as  upon  two  tables  of 
stone.  I am  surprised  more  and  more  to  see  how  entirely  they 
fall  into  Hawkins’  theory  even  in  set  words,  that  Scripture 
proves  and  the  Church  teaches.” 

In  regard  to  the  more  recent  Eoman  idea,  of  which  Card. 
Franzelin  may  be  taken  as  chief  exponent  (see  De  Divin,  Tradit, 
et  Script,,  ed.  3,  Rome,  1882,  and  cf.  R.  C,  Claims,  p.  58),  it 
must  be  remarked  that  no  doctrine  of  development  is  of  any 
assistance  to  the  Roman  position  which  does  not  cover  an 
actual  increase  in  positive  revelation.  The  early  Church  did  not 
know  anything  of,  e.  g.,  the  immaculate  conception  of  Mary. 
But  this  positive  increase  in  revelation  is  firmly  and  finally 
repudiated  by  Newman.  See  Tracts  Theol.  and  Eccl,  (Picker- 
ing, 1874),  p.  287,  written  as  a Roman  Catholic.  “ First  of  all, 
and  in  as  few  words  as  possible,  and  ex  ahundanti  cauteld:  — 
Every  Catholic  holds  that  the  Christian  dogmas  were  in  the 
Church  from  the  time  of  the  apostles ; that  they  were  ever  in 


NOTE  25. 


273 


their  substance  what  they  are  now;  that  they  existed  before 
the  formulas  were  publicly  adopted,  in  which  as  time  went  on 
they  were  defined  and  recorded.”  With  this  cf.  Lord  Acton’s 
words,  Engl.  Hist.  Review,  Oct.  1890,  p.  723.  “Just  then  after 
sixteen  years  spent  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  Newman  was 

inclined  to  guard  and  narrow  his  theory He  thought 

that  a divine  of  the  second  century  on  seeing  the  Roman  cate- 
chism would  have  recognized  his  own  belief  in  it  without  sur- 
prise, as  soon  as  he  understood  its  meaning.  He  once  wrote, 
‘ If  I have  said  more  than  this  I think  I have  not  worked  out 
my  meaning,  and  was  confused  — whether  the  minute  facts  of 
history  will  bear  me  out  in  this  view  I leave  to  others  to  deter- 
mine.’ ” 

The  third  view  mentioned  in  the  lecture  is  that  of  the  late 
Dr.  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  1888,  “The  influence  of  Greek 
ideas  and  usages  upon  the  Christian  Church  ” (Williams  & Nor- 
gate,  1890).  The  fundamental  fault  of  this  work  is  noticed  on 
pp.  99,  100.  The  same  criticism  is  made  in  an  admirable 
review  of  the  work  in  the  Church  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1891, 
pp.  380  fi.,  and  by  Professor  Sanday  in  Contemp.  Review,  May, 
1891,  pp.  688-690.  I cannot  but  think  that  the  criticisms  at 
the  end  of  this  latter  article  go  far  to  invalidate  the  praise  with 
which  it  begins.  Dr.  Hatch’s  work  seems  almost  always  to 
have  this  fatal  flaw,  when  he  is  dealing  with  Christian  subjects, 
that  he  omits  the  central  and  positive  evidence  in  favour  of 
what  is  external,  suggestive,  and  subsidiary.  Thus  his  Hibbert 
Lectures  are  in  fact  little  more  than  an  abstract  consideration 
of  how  we  might  have  imagined  the  development  of  Christian 
theology  to  have  taken  place,  if  the  New  Testament  and  the 
sub-apostolic  writers  had  perished.  There  is  however  one  sen- 
tence in  Dr.  Hatch’s  work  which  does  describe  admirably  the 
facts  of  the  case  (p.  207  ; the  italics  are  mine)  : “We  may  sum 
up  the  result  of  the  influence  of  Greece  on  the  conception  of 
God  in  His  relation  to  the  material  universe,  by  saying  that 
it  found  a reasoned  basis  for  Hebrew  monotheism.  It  helped 
the  Christian  communities  to  believe  as  an  intellectual  conviction 
that  which  they  had  first  accepted  as  a spiritual  revelation.** 


274  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


Note  26.  See  p.  91. 

The  theology  of  the  New  Testament,  In  my  third  lecture  I 
argued  at  first  simply  from  the  central  epistles  of  St.  Paul  (1,  2 
Cor.,  Rom.,  Gal.)  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark.  These  are  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  the  theological  conception  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  as  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  is  the  original  conception. 
It  is  of  course  assumed  by  certain  writers  that  St.  Paul  is  the 
parent  of  the  distinctively  Christian  theology,  and  that  the  orig- 
inal Christianity  is  better  represented  by  Ebionism.  This  view 
is  contrary  to  the  evidence. 

(1)  The  evidence  of  St.  Paul’s  central  epistles  shows  (see 
above,  p.  66)  that  on  the  person  of  Christ  there  was  no  con- 
troversy between  him  and  the  Judaizers. 

(2)  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  divine  Sonship 
appears  (see  above,  p.  72),  is  connected  historically  not  with 
St.  Paul,  but  with  St.  Peter.  The  same  doctrine  appears  also 
in  the  discourses  common  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke;  see 
St.  Matt.  xi.  27,  St.  Luke  x.  22. 

(3)  The  epistle  of  St.  James,  which  is  most  certainly  inde- 
pendent of  St.  Paul,  identifies  Christ  ‘‘  the  Lord  ” with  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  in  a manner  which  involves  the 
theology  of  the  eternal  Sonship.  The  identification  is  apparent 
in  V.  4,  7,  8,  10,  11,  14,  15 ; see  also  ii.  1 ; and  compare  iv.  12, 
where  the  “ one  lawgiver  and  judge  ” is  God,  with  v.  9,  etc., 
where  “the  judge”  is  Jesus  Christ. 

(4)  The  evidence,  external  and  internal,  refers  the  fourth 
Gospel  to  St.  John,  and  renders  its  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son  independent  of  St.  Paul. 

(5)  There  is  no  book  less  “ Pauline  ” than  the  Apocalypse, 

but  also  no  book  in  which  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (ii.  18 ; 
cf.  ii.  28,  iii.  5),  is  more  plainly  conceived  of  as  God : see  esp. 
(a)  i.  8,  where  He  that  “is  to  come”  is  Christ,  as  in  verse  7, 
and  He  is  also  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  (xxii.  12,  13).  (h) 

V.  9-13,  where  the  lamb  is  worshipped  as  God.  (c)  xxii.  1 
(cf.  iii.  1),  where  the  lamb  is  with  the  Father  the  source  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 


NOTE  26. 


275 


The  language  in  the  New  Testament,  which  is  most  sus- 
ceptible of  an  Ebionite  interpretation  of  the  highest  sort,  is  that 
of  the  early  speeches  in  the  Acts  taken  by  themselves.  But  the 
supporters  of  the  view  which  is  being  combated  are  precluded 
from  appealing  to  these,  by  the  fact  that  the  rudimentary 
character  of  the  theology  in  these  speeches  is  the  best  possible 
testimony  to  the  trustworthiness  of  St.  Luke’s  materials,  and 
his  accuracy  in  the  use  of  them.  Indirectly  this  augments  the 
trustworthiness  of  his  Gospel  material,  in  which  Christ  proclaims 
Himself  the  Son  of  God  (x.  22,  xxii.  70).  More  directly  it 
augments  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the  Acts  ; and  if  the 
Acts  is  historical,  then  (a)  there  was  no  theological  opposition 
between  St.  Paul  and  the  older  apostles : (b)  St.  Stephen  had 
learnt  to  worship  Christ  as  Lord  before  St.  Paul’s  conversion 
(vii.  59,  60;  cf.  i.  24  and  1 Cor.  i.  3).  The  only  conclusion, 
then,  that  can  legitimately  be  drawn  from  these  speeches  (which 
are  in  no  way  incompatible  with  the  fullest  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation),  is  that  the  Christian  Church  immediately  after 
Pentecost  was  simply  intent  (see  pp.  96-7)  upon  demonstrating 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 

On  the  development  of  Christian  theology  between  the 
apostles  and  Athanasius,  I may  refer  to  a summary  history  by 
the  E-ev.  A.  Robertson,  which  is  forthcoming  in  Nicene  and 
PosUNicene  Library ^ ser.  ii.  vol.  iv.  proleg.  cap.  ii.  § 3 (2). 
In  sub-apostolic  days  the  rich  theology  of  Ignatius,  the  theology 
of  Clement  (whose  trinitarian  formula,  ad  Cor.  58,  certified 
by  the  recovery  of  the  end  of  his  epistle,  sheds  light  on  the  rest 
of  his  language),  and  the  unmistakable,  if  confused,  incarnation 
doctrine  of  Hermas,  hold  the  ground  against  the  anonymous 
and  uncertified  documents  of  an  Ebionite  or  semi-Ebionite  char- 
acter. Moreover,  the  strong  appeal  of  all  Church  theologians, 
as  against  humanitarianism  or  gnosticism  to  apostolic  traditions^ 
must  never  be  forgotten.  This  appeal  can  be  in  large  measure 
verified  and  justified.  It  is  striking  to  notice  how  Origen,  in 
his  most  speculative  work,  the  Pe  Principiis,  begins  with  the 
statement  of  tradition.  See  Dr.  Bigg,  Bampton  Lectures,  1887, 
^‘The  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria”  (Clar.  Press),  pp. 


276  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


152  “ We  have  already  seen  what  Origen  regarded  as  the 

proper  task  of  the  Christian  philosopher.  Tradition,  embodying 
the  teaching  of  the  apostles,  has  handed  down  certain  facts,  cer- 
tain usages,  which  are  to  be  received  without  dispute,  but  does 
not  attempt  to  explain  the  why  or  the  whence.  It  is  the  office  of 
the  sanctified  reason  to  define,  to  articulate,  to  co-ordinate,  even 
to  expand,  and  generally  to  adapt  to  human  needs  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  Church.  What,  then,  is  the  utterance  of 
tradition  ? It  tells  us  that  there  is  one  God  who  created  all 
things  out  of  nothing,  who  is  just  and  good,  the  author  of  the 
Old  as  of  the  New  Testament,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;  that  Jesus  Christ  was  begotten  of  the  Father  before 
every  creature,  that  through  Him  all  things  were  made,  that 
He  is  God  and  Man,  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Virgin 
Mary,  that  He  did  truly  suffer,  rise  again,  and  ascend  into 
heaven : that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  associated  in  honour  and  dignity 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  that  it  is  He  who  inspired  the 
saints  both  of  the  old  and  of  the  new  dispensation : that  there 
will  be  a resurrection  of  the  dead,  when  the  body  which  is  sown 
in  corruption  will  rise  in  incorruption,  and  that  in  the  world  to 
come  the  souls  of  men  will  inherit  eternal  life  or  suffer  eternal 
punishment  according  to  their  works : that  every  reasonable 
soul  is  a free  agent,  plotted  against  by  evil  spirits,  comforted  by 
good  angels,  but  in  no  way  constrained : that  the  Scriptures 
were  written  by  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  they  have 
two  senses,  the  plain  and  the  hidden,  whereof  the  latter  can  be 
known  only  to  those  to  whom  is  given  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  word  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.” 


Note  27.  See  p.  94. 

Suhapostolic  writers.  See  Dorner,  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  (Eng.  trans.  Clark’s  Libr.),  div.  i.  vol.  i.  p.  92.  “ There 

is  undeniably  a very  significant  distinction  between  the  written 
productions  of  the  apostolic  age  and  those  of  the  age  im- 
mediately following ; and  it  is  hardly  possible  to  represent  the 


NOTES  26-28. 


27T 


relation  of  the  one  to  the  other  more  erroneously,  than  when 
the  apostolic  age  is  called,  in  a dogmatical  respect,  a germ 
and  a beginning,  while  the  age  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  is 
regarded  as  the  fruitful  unfolding  of  that  germ.  It  is  true  that, 
to  a certain  extent,  on  one  side  such  an  advance  was  to  be 
expected  in  the  later  age;  for  this  is  according  to  the  law  of 
history.  But  if  we  try  each  of  these  ages  by  the  standard  of 
its  Christian  knowledge,  we  shall  find  beyond  all  doubt  a 
serious  falling  o:ff  in  the  age  following  that  of  the  apostles. 
What  was  in  the  earlier  age  the  actual  spiritual  possession  of 
the  distinguished  men  whom  the  Lord  chose,  trained,  and 
equipped,  was  far  from  being  all  retained  by  the  succeeding 
age ; much  less  was  a higher  stage  of  Christian  knowledge  at- 
tained. Such  a retrogression,  following  times  of  unusual 
spiritual  elevation  and  expansion,  is  quite  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  historical  development,  as  we  see  in  other  cases.” 

Note  28.  See  p.  96. 

The  formula  of  Chalcedon,  The  following  is  the  most  im- 
portant passage : — 

“ Wherefore,  after  the  example  of  the  holy  Fathers,  we  all 
with  one  voice  confess  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  one  and  the  same 
Son,  the  same  perfect  in  Godhead,  the  same  perfect  in  manhood, 
very  God  and  very  Man,  the  same  consisting  of  a reasonable 
soul  and  a body,  of  one  substance  with  the  Father  as  touching 
the  Godhead,  the  same  of  one  substance  with  us  as  touching 
the  manhood,  like  us  in  all  things,  sin  except ; begotten  of  the 
Father  before  the  worlds  as  touching  the  Godhead,  the  same 
in  these  last  days,  for  us  and  for  our  salvation,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary,  the  Mother  of  God,  as  touching  the  manhood,  one 
and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord,  Only -begotten,  to  be  acknowl- 
edged of  two  natures,  without  confusion,  without  conversion, 
without  division,  never  to  be  separated,  (dcrvyxi^a)?,  drpcTrrws, 
d8wxtp€Tct)s,  ax^picTTiDsi) ; the  distinction  of  natures  being  in  no 
wise  done  away  because  of  the  union,  but  rather  the  character- 
istic property  of  each  nature  being  preserved,  and  concurring 


278  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


into  one  Person  and  one  subsistence,  not  as  if  Christ  were 
parted  or  divided  into  two  persons,  but  one  and  the  same  Son 
and  only-begotten  God,  Word,  Lord,  Jesus  Christ;  even  as  the 
Prophets  from  the  beginning  spake  concerning  Him,  and  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  instructed  us,  and  the  symbol  of  the 
Fathers  hath  handed  down  to  us.” 

Note  29.  See  p.  96. 

Theological  confusion  in  period  of  councils,  Cf.  Holland’s  On 
Behalf  of  -BeZ^e/(Longmans,  1889),  The  building  of  the  Spirit.” 
He  quotes  St.  Hilary : “We  determine  creeds  by  the  year,  or  by 
the  month ; and  then  we  change  our  determination ; and  then 
we  prohibit  our  changes ; and  then  we  anathematize  our  pro- 
hibitions.” St.  Hilary  is  speaking  of  the  authorities  in  the 
Church.  For  more  quotations  see  R,  C.  ClaimSy  p.  xii.  and 
pp.  49  ff. 

Note  30.  See  p.  97. 

The  Via  Media.  This  is  expounded  in  the  admirable  little 
treatise  ascribed  to  Boetius,  con.  Eut.  et  Nest,  praef . and  c.  7 ; cf . 
Greg.  Nyss.  Cat.  Mag.  c.  3,  where  the  action  of  the  Church  is 
described  as  uniting  the  good  in  opposite  heresies,  while  oppos- 
ing each  in  turn.  See  further,  R.  C.  Claims y ch.  1. 

Note  31.  See  p.  106. 

Dogmatic  passages  in  the  N.  T.  These  passages,  Phil.  ii. 
5-11,  Col.  i.  15-18,  Heb.  i.  1-3,  St.  John  i.  1-18,  1 St.  John  i. 
1-3,  ii.  22,  23,  have  received  full  explanation,  the  two  first  from 
Dr.  Lightfoot,  the  rest  from  Dr.  Westcott,  in  their  commentaries. 
See  also  the  phrase  of  the  Ep.  to  Titus,  “ Our  great  God  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,”  ii.  13 ; cf.  ii.  10,  iii.  4,  6. 

St.  Basil  {de  Spirit.  Sanct.  iii.  5)  hits  the  mark  when  he 
describes  the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  by  contrast  to 
the  controversial  language  of  his  time,  as  untechnical  — dirkg 
Kal  dT€)(yoX6yr]To<i  tot)  Tryevparo^  StSacTKaXca. 


NOTES  28-34. 


279 


Note  32.  See  p.  108. 

Christ s permanent  manhood.  The  permanence  of  our  Lord’s 
manhood,  in  body  and  soul,  is  no  doubt  a mysterious  subject. 
It  is  very  necessary  not  to  conceive  grossly  of  ‘‘the  spiritual 
body  ” ; and  St.  Paul’s  language,  1 Cor.  xv.  35  ff.,  is  sufficient 
safeguard  against  this  error.  On  the  other  hand,  St.  John  cer- 
tainly asserts  that  Christ  is  “ to  come  in  the  flesh,”  2 St.  John 
7 ; cf.  Westcott  in  loc.  and  Acts  i.  11.  St.  Paul  certainly  teaches 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  makes  our  Lord’s  glorified 
body  the  prototype,  1 Cor.  xv.  23.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
also  implies  the  permanence  of  our  Lord’s  manhood,  cf.  vii.  26 
-viii.  4,  X.  19-21. 


LECTUEE  V. 

Note  33.  See  p.  125. 

ManseVs  Bampton  Lectures.  These  lectures,  and  the  contro- 
versy raised  by  them,  are  only  referred  to  in  order  to  empha- 
size a positive  principle  involved  in  the  Incarnation  — that 
human  qualities  really  can  and  do  express  those  of  God.  Han- 
sel’s language  did  undoubtedly  appear  to  obscure  this  principle. 
Hence  the  controversy  of  which  I endeavour  to  gather  the  fruit 
without  entering  into  its  exact  merits. 


Note  34.  See  p.  129. 

Chrisfs  humanity  personal  or  impersonal  f The  truth  which 
the  phrase  “ Christ’s  impersonal  manhood  ” is  intended  to  guard, 
is  that  the  humanity  which  our  Lord  assumed  had  no  independent 
personality.  It  found  its  personality  in  the  Son  who  assumed 
it.  But  as  assumed  by  Him  it  was  most  truly  personal.  See 
Petavius,  de  Incarn.  iii.  cc.  12  (§§  4-7),  13,  v.  cc.  5-7 ; and  De 
Lugo,  de  Myster.  Incarn.  dispp.  x.  and  xiii.  § 2. 


280  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


Note  35.  See  p.  132. 

God^s  love  revealed  first  in  Christ,  Cf.  Robert  Browning,  The 
Ring  and  the  Book,  iv.  p.  60 ; — 

‘‘  Conjecture  of  the  worker  by  the  work : 

Is  there  strength  there  ? Enough  : intelligence  ? 

Ample  : but  goodness  in  a like  degree  ? 

Not  to  the  human  eye  in  the  present  state, 

An  isoscele  deficient  in  the  base. 

What  lacks,  then,  of  perfection  fit  for  God 
But  just  the  instance  which  this  tale  supplies 
Of  love  without  a limit  ? So  is  strength, 

So  is  intelligence  ; let  love  be  so, 

Unlimited  in  its  self-sacrifice, 

Then  is  the  tale  true  and  God  shows  complete. 

Beyond  the  tale,  I reach  into  the  dark. 

Feel  what  I cannot  see,  and  still  faith  stands.” 

Note  36.  See  p.  137. 

Prayer  in  accordance  with  law.  Cf.  in  Gerhard,  Meditationes 
Sacrae,  med.  25 : “ Placet  Deo  oratio,  sed  debito  modo  insti- 
tuta;  qui  ergo  exaudiri  desiderat,  is  oret  sapienter,  ardenter, 
humiliter,  fideliter,  perseveranter  et  confidenter.  Oret  sapien- 
ter, ut  scilicet,  oret  ea,  quae  divinae  gloriae  et  proximorum  saluti 
serviunt.  Omnipotens  est  Deus,  ergo  non  statuas  ei  in  pre- 
cibus  modum : sapientissimus  est,  ergo  non  praescribas  ordinem : 
non  temere  prorumpant,  sed  fidem  praeeuntem  sequantur,  fides 
autem  respicit  verbum : quae  ergo  absolute  Deus  in  verbo  pro- 
mittit,  absolute  ores ; quae  cum  conditione  promittit,  ut  tempo- 
ralia,  ea  itidem  cum  conditione  ores ; quae  nullo  modo  promittit, 
ea  etiam  nullo  modo  ores ; saepe  Deus  dat  iratus,  quod  negat 
propitius.  Sequere  ergo  Christum,  qui  suam  voluntatem  plene 
Deo  resignat.” 

Note  37.  See  p.  138. 

The  death  of  Christ  not  God's  act,  Cf.  Acts  ii.  22-24 : “ Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  a man  approved  of  God  unto  you  by  mighty  works 


NOTES  35-39. 


281 


and  wonders  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him  in  the  midst  of 
you,  even  as  ye  yourselves  know ; him,  being  delivered  up  by 
the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  by  the 
hands  of  lawless  men  (or  ‘men  without  the  law’)  did  crucify 
and  slay:  whom  God  raised  up.”  Here,  as  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  manifestation  of  the  Christ  and  the  raising 
up  of  the  Christ  from  the  dead  are  assigned  directly  to  God. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  crucifixion  of  the  Christ  is  man’s  act, 
which  God  foresees,  bears  with  and  works  through  to  His  own 
ends. 

It  is  to  put  this  in  other  words,  to  say  (with  St.  Anselm,  Cur 
Deus  Homo,  i.  9)  that  God  willed,  primarily,  the  obedience  of 
the  Christ : and  in  a secondary  sense  the  death  of  the  Christ, 
because  under  the  sinful  conditions  of  the  world,  obedience  led 
to  death.  “ Potest  enim  dici  quia  praecepit  illi  mori  Pater  cum 
hoc  praecepit  unde  incurrit  mortem.” 

Note  38.  See  p.  140. 

God^s  gradual  method  in  the  0.  T,  The  quotation  is  from  St. 
Irenaeus  c.  Haer,  iv.  13.  4.  Cf.  13.  1 : “ omnia  haec  non  con- 
trarietatem  et  dissolutionem  praeteritorum  continent  . . . sed 
plenitudinem  et  extensionem.”  Further  quotations  will  be 
found  in  Lux  Mundi,  Essay  viii.,  ‘‘  The  Holy  Spirit  and  Inspira- 
tion,” pp.  329-31. 

Note  39.  See  p.  140. 

St,  Augustine  on  Evolution,  See  De  Gen,  ad  Hit,  v.  23  (44, 
45)  : “ Consideremus  ergo  cuiuslibet  arboris  pulchritudinem  in 
robore,  ramis,  frondibus,  pomis  : haec  species  non  utique  repente 
tanta  ac  talis  est  exorta,  sed  quo  etiam  ordine  novimus.  Sur- 
rexit  enim  a radice,  quam  terrae  primum  germen  infixit ; atque 
inde  omnia  ilia  for  mat  a et  distincta  creverunt.  Porro  illud 
germen  ex  semine : in  semine  ergo  ilia  omnia  fuerunt  primitus, 
non  mole  corporeae  magnitudinis,  sed  vi  potentiaque  causali . . . 
Sicut  autem  in  ipso  grano  invisibiliter  erant  omnia  simul  quae 
per  tempora  in  arborem  surgerent : ita  ipse  mundus  cogitandus 


282  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


est,  cum  Deus  simul  omnia  creavit,  habuisse  simul  omnia  quae 
in  illo  et  cum  illo  facta  sunt,  quando  factus  est  dies ; non  solum 
caelum  cum  sole  et  luna  et  sideribus,  quorum  species  manet 
motu  rotabili,  et  terram  et  abyssos  . . . ; sed  etiam  ilia  quae 
aqua  et  terra  produxit  potentialiter  atque  causaliter,  prius 
quam  per  temporum  moras  ita  exorirentur,  quomodo  nobis  jam 
nota  sunt  in  eis  operibus,  quae  Deus  usque  nunc  operatur.” 

Note  40.  See  p.  140. 

God  self-limited.  The  quotation  is  given  at  length  in  App. 
note  14  to  lect.  ii.  Christian  thought  grasped  from  the  first  this 
conception  of  God  as  not  “ infinite  ” in  the  sense  of  indetermi- 
nate, but  self-limited ; see  the  ancient  unknown  teacher  already 
quoted  by  St.  Irenseus  in  the  second  century  {con.  Haer.  iy.  4. 
2)  : ‘‘  Bene  qui  dixit  ipsum  immensum  Patrem  in  Filio  men- 
suratum ; mensura  enim  Patris  Films,  quoniam  et  capit  eum.” 
Hardly  anything  has  done  more  harm  in  theology  than  the 
neglect  of  this  thought  in  loose  ideas  of  the  divine  “ infinity.” 

Note  41.  See  p.  141. 

Arbitrary  decrees  attributed  to  God.  This  attribution  has  of 
course  been  justified  by  reference  to  St.  Paul’s  argument  in 
Rom.  ix.  But  St.  Paul  is  there  asserting  the  divine  absolute- 
ness, not  as  against  man’s  moral  freedom  and  responsibility, 
but  as  against  the  immoral  and  irresponsible  claim  of  the  Jew 
that  God  had  committed  Himself  to  his  race.  God’s  freedom 
is  asserted  by  St.  Paul  as  against  any  claim  on  man’s  part 
either  (1)  to  determine  his  vocation,  or  (2)  to  retain  his  voca- 
tion where  he  fails  to  show  the  correspondence  of  faith.  Thus 
he  is  in  fact  proving  that  God’s  elections  are  not  arbitrary 
from  the  moral  point  of  view  (as  the  Jew  would  have  them  to 
be),  but  in  accordance  with  the  moral  law  of  correspondence. 
I have  endeavoured  to  draw  out  the  continuous  argument  of 
Romans  ix~xi.  at  length  in  Studia  Biblica  (Clar.  Press,  1891), 
vol.  iii.  pp.  37  fi. 


NOTES  39-45. 


28a 


Note  42.  See  p.  144. 

The  three  elements  in  man^s  spirit.  Plato  in  trying  to  describe 
the  elements  of  man’s  nature  under  a figure  is  driven  to  use 
a trinitarian  formula,  Republic  ix.  588  d : avvairre  avra  ds  cV 
Tpta  oj/ra.  The  Christian  fathers  commonly  use  the  human 
trinity  in  various  ways  as  an  image  or  figure  of  the  divine,  e.  g. 
Greg.  Nyss.  Cat.  Mag.  1-4.  See  Lux  Mundi,  Essay  viii.  p.  336. 
The  use  of  this  analogy  by  the  Fathers  shows  at  least  that  they 
did  not  wish  us  to  think  of  the  three  divine  Persons  as  separate 
individuals. 

Note  43.  See  p.  147. 

God^s  triune  being  disclosed  in  Christ.  I should  wish  to  lay 
great  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  existence  of  the  Trinity  in  God 
becomes  a truth  of  human  experience,  if  the  claim  of  our  Lord 
to  oneness  with  God  is  admitted.  It  is,  in  the  light  of  His  per- 
sonality and  language,  no  mere  speculation  in  metaphysics,  any 
more  than,  e.  g.,  the  very  <<  metaphysical  ” statements  of  scientific 
men  as  to  the  luminiferous  ether. 

Note  44.  See  p.  149. 

Unitarianism  untenable.  This  has  been  recently  exemplified 
again  in  the  Appeal  to  Unitarians  (the  work  referred  to  in  app. 
note  5 on  p.  258),  pp.  77  fi.  Dr.  Martineau  himself  perceives 
that  the  existence  of  God  postulates  an  eternal  coexistent 
“object”  (see  Seat  of  Authority^  p.  32),  but  this  object  he  con- 
ceives to  be  space,  or  space  and  matter. 


LECTUEE  VI. 

Note  45.  See  p.  164. 

Johannes  De  Lugoy  S.  J.y  Disputationes  Scholasticae  de  Incar^ 
natione  Dominica  (Lugd.  1633)  : see  disp.  xviii.-xxi.  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  knowledge  of  Christ;  disp.  xxviii.  on  the  phrase 


284  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


‘‘servus  Dei”;  disp.  xxxiv.  sec.  ii.  § 47,  on  Christ  sacrificing  to 
Himself  as  God.  (There  is  no  doubt  a sense  in  which  this 
phrase  expresses  the  truth.  But  it  leaves  out  of  sight,  like  so 
much  in  the  same  school  of  theology,  that  the  divine  Son  was 
personally  acting  under  conditions  of  manhood.) 

Note  46.  See  p.  173. 

Divine  power  shown  most  chiefly  in  self-humiliation.  Cf.  Greg. 
Nyss.  Cat  Mag.  24 : Trptorov  gkv  ovv  to  t^v  TravToSwapov  <f>v(nv 
Trpos  TO  Taireivov  t^s  avdpinTroTrjTO^  KaralSgvaL  iaxvaai,  irXuova 
T^v  aTToSeL^Lv  rrjs  8wap.€(os  rj  Ta  pcyaXa  re  Kal  VTrepcfivg  tcov 
OavpAruiv.  to  pev  yap  piya  rt  Kal  vil/rjXov  i^epyacrdgvoL  irapa  rg^ 
Geias  SvvdpeiDfs,  Kara  (f>v(nv  Trtos  eorri  Kal  aKoXovOov.  . . . 'g  Se  7rpo5 
TttTrctvov  KaOoSo^  Trepiovaia  icm  t^s  Svvdpeois,  oiuScv  ev  tols 
irapd  ^vo'tv  KuyXvopivrj^.  Hilar.  Piet,  de  Trin.  xi.  48:  “quod 
autem  se  ipsum  intra  se  vacuefaciens  continuit,  detrimentum 
non  attulit  potestati ; cum  intra  hanc  exinanientis  se  humilita- 
tem,  virtute  tamen  omnis  exinanitae  intra  se  usus  sit  potestatis.” 

Note  47.  See  p.  177. 

The  conception  of  the  Incarnation.  Our  Lord  is  commonly 
represented,  as  living  during  His  life  on  earth  in  the  habitual 
exercise  of  a double  consciousness,  as  acting  and  speaking  now 
as  God  and  now  as  man.  It  is  true  of  course  that  as  being  God 
in  manhood  He  possessed  at  every  moment  the  divine,  as  well  as 
the  human,  consciousness  and  nature.  But  in  great  meas- 
ure, the  self-sacrifice  of  the  Incarnation  seems  to  have  lain  in 
His  refraining  from  the  exercise  of  what  He  possessed,  or  from 
the  divine  mode  of  action,  that  He  might  live  under  conditions 
of  a true  manhood : cf.  Westcott,  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  66. 
“ The  two  natures  were  inseparably  united  in  the  unity  of  His 
Person.  In  all  things  He  acts  personally:  and,  as  far  as  is 
revealed  to  us,  the  greatest  works  during  His  earthly  life  are 
wrought  by  the  help  of  the  Father  through  the  energy  of  a 
humanity  enabled  to  do  all  things  in  fellowship  with  God.” 


NOTES  45-48. 


285 


It  is  not  enough  to  recognize  that  our  Lord  was  ignorant 
of  a divine  secret,  in  respect  of  His  human  nature,  unless  we 
recognize  also  that  He  was  so  truly  acting  under  conditions  of 
human  nature  as  Himself  to  be  ignorant.  “ The  Son  ” did  not 
know. 

This  involves  no  change  in  God  because  it  was  simply  an 
external  exhibition  of  an  eternal  capacity  for  self-sacrifice  in 
the  being  of  God. 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  in  what  relation  does  this  self-emptying 
stand  to  the  cosmic  functions  of  the  Son,  “ in  whom  all  things 
consist,”  who  ‘‘  bears  along  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power  ” 
(Col.  i.  18,  Heb.  i.  3)  ? 

To  this  question,  it  seems  to  me,  we  can  give  but  a very 
hesitating  and  partial  answer.  On  the  one  hand  we  cannot  but 
recognize  with  theologians  from  St.  Athanasius  {de  Incarn.  17) 
to  Dr.  Westcott  (L  c.  p.  426)  that  the  work  of  the  Son  in 
nature  “was  in  no  way  interrupted  by  the  Incarnation.”  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Incarnation  is  represented  as  involving  an 
act  of  self-sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  Father  in  surrendering 
the  Son  (see  above  p.  159),  and  it  is  described  as  a “ coming 
down  from  heaven”  on  the  part  of  the  Son.  (In  St.  John 
iii.  13,  the  words  “ which  is  in  heaven  ” are,  we  must  remember, 
very  doubtful).  It  seems  that  the  matter  of  real  importance 
is  that  we  should  be  boldly  faithful  to  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  not  attempt  to  “ describe,  beyond  the  scriptures, 
the  measure  or  the  manner  ” of  the  divine  condescension  (Athan. 
c.  Apollinar.  ii.  ad  fin.).  The  Incarnate  Son  was  personally, 
within  the  sphere  of  the  Incarnation,  accepting  the  limitation  of 
humanity.  See  Bruce,  Humiliation  of  Christ  (Clark,  Ed.  3, 1889), 
pp.  187-191. 

Note  48.  See  p.  177. 

The  Fathers  on  the  human  ignorance  of  Christ.  The  support 
which  the  Fathers  give  to  the  view  maintained  in  the  text  is 
twofold.  (1)  Many  recognize  a real  ignorance  in  our  Lord  in 
respect  of  His  humanity.  (2)  Some  give  great  reality  to  the 
idea  of  the  self-limitation  of  the  Son.  Thus  Irenaeus  recognizes 


286  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

an  occasional  ‘‘  quiescence  ” of  tlie  Divine  Word  to  allow  of  the 
human  trials  of  the  Incarnate  (con,  Haer,  iii.  19.  3).  Origen 
speaks  of  a seK-humiliation  of  the  Son  to  a divine  folly,”  i.  e. 
to  a human  mode  of  wisdom  (Horn,  in  lerem  8.  8).  Others,  as 
St.  Cyril  and  St.  Hilary,  supply  us  with  admirable  formulas  for 
the  “ self-emptying,”  though  without  applying  it  to  the  limita- 
tion of  knowledge. 

But  the  study  of  the  Fathers  on  this  subject  forces  upon  one 
the  conviction  that  they  were  not  facing  the  question  exactly  as 
it  presents  itself  to  us. 

I must  be  content  for  the  moment  to  refer  to  the  quotations 
from  the  Fathers  given  by  Mr.  Swayne  in  his  Enquiry  into 
the  Nature  of  our  Lord's  Knowledge  as  Man  (with  a preface  by 
the  Bp.  of  Salisbury;  Longmans,  1891). 

Note  49.  See  p.  178. 

The  protest  of  Theodoret.  See  Repr,  xiL  capp,  Cyril,  in  anath. 
iv. ; ‘‘If  He  knew  the  day,  and,  wishing  to  conceal  it,  said  He 
was  ignorant,  see  what  blasphemy  is  the  result.  Truth  tells 
a lie.” 

Note  50.  See  p.  181. 

Christ  could  have  sinned y if  He  had  willed.  So  St.  Augustine, 
Op,  Imperf,  c,  Jul,  iv.  48 ; “ Christus  hanc  cupiditatem  vitiorum 
et  sentire  posset,  si  haberet ; et  habere,  si  vellet ; sed  absit  ut 
vellet.”  Cf.  Anselm,  Cur  Deus  Homo,  ii.  10  : “ Possumus  igitur 
dicere  de  Christo  quia  potuit  mentiri,  si  subaudiatur,  si  vellet.” 
[Boethius]  c.  Eut.  et  Nest.  c.  8. 

Note  51.  See  p.  181. 

Man  not  originally  perfect.  In  answer  to  the  question  whether 
Adam  was  formed  perfect  or  imperfect  [tcXcio?  rj  dreXTys],  Clem- 
ent replies : “ They  shall  learn  from  us  that  he  was  not  perfect 
in  respect  of  his  creation,  but  in  a fit  condition  to  receive  virtue.” 
Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vi.  12.  96 ; cf.  Iren,  c,  Haer,  iv.  38. 


NOTES  48-53. 


287 


LECTUEE  VIL 

Note  52.  See  p.  192. 

We  know  in  part  and  prophesy  in  part.  The  commentary  of 
Estius  on  these  words  (1  Cor.  xiii.  9)  is  noteworthy : 

Itaque  sensus  esse  videtur : Donum  scientiae  ac  prophetiae 
nobis  datur  ob  imperfectionem  huius  saeculi,  quia  per  scientiam 
homines  spiritualium  rudes  ac  rebus  sensibilibus  dediti  ab  ipsis 
sensibilibus  ad  capienda  fidei  rnysteria  veluti  manu  ducendi 
sunt,  per  donum  autem  prophetiae  de  reconditis  scripturarum 
sensibus  instituendi.  Quorum  neutrum  agetur  futuro  saeculo, 
ubi  perfecta  erunt  omnia.  . . . Consequens  item  est,  etiam  Chris- 
tum Dominum,  in  hac  vita  conversantem,  cognovisse  et  prophetasse 
ex  parte,  sensu  videlicet  iam  explicate.^' 

That  our  Lord  is  content  to  use  popular  language,  by  way 
of  metaphor,  without  criticism  or  correction,  is  nowhere  more 
apparent  than  when  He  speaks  of  the  unclean  spirits  ‘‘  passing 
through  waterless  places,  seeking  rest’’  (St.  Matt.  xii.  43;  cf. 
Tobit  viii.  3).  But  to  regard  our  Lord’s  language  about  angels 
and  devils  as  not  more  than  metaphorical,  is  only  possible  on 
principles  which  might  equally  be  used  to  evacuate  all  His  lan- 
guage of  meaning. 

Note  53.  See  p.  200. 

St  Augustine  on  Purgatory.  See  De  Civ.  Dei,  xxi.  26.  4 : 

Post  istius  sane  corporis  mortem,  donee  ad  ilium  veniatur, 
qui  post  resurrectionem  corporum  futurus  est  damnationis  et 
remunerationis  ultimus  dies,  si  hoc  temporis  intervallo  spiritus 
defunctorum  ejusmodi  ignem  dicuntur  perpeti,  quern  non 
sentiant  illi  qui  non  habuerunt  tales  mores  et  amores  in  hujus 
corporis  vita,  ut  eorum  ligna,  foenum,  stipula  consumatur ; alii 
vero  sentiant  qui  ejusmodi  secum  aedificia  portaverunt,  sive  ibi 
tantum,  sive  et  hie  et  ibi,  sive  ideo  hie  ut  non  ibi,  saecularia, 
quamvis  a damnatione  venialia  concremantem  ignem  transitoriae 
tribulationis  inveniant ; non  redarguo,  quia  forsitan  verum  est.” 


288  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


Note  51.  See  p.  201. 

No  new  doctrines  in  the  Church.  For  Card.  Newman’s  final 
mind  on  this  subject  see  above,  app.  note  25,  p.  272.  It  is 
worth  while  calling  attention  to  the  language  used  in  the 
formal  Declaration  of  the  Catholic  Bishops,  the  Vicars  apostolic 
and  their  coadjutors  in  Great  Britain  ” in  1826.  (London, 
Keating  & Brown,  1826.)  See  sec.  ii.  p.  7.  “ On  the  spiritual 

authority  of  the  apostles  and  their  successors,  who  were  divinely 
commissioned  to  promulgate  and  teach  the  law  of  Christ  to  all 
nations ; and  on  the  uniform  and  universal  testimony,  belief, 
and  practice  of  all  Christian  Churches  from  the  beginning,  the 
certitude  of  the  Catholic  is  grounded,  that  all  the  doctrines 
which  he  believes,  as  articles  of  Catholic  faith,  and  all  the  sacred 
precepts  and  rites,  which  he  observes,  as  the  ordinances  of  Christ, 
were  really  revealed  and  instituted  by  Almighty  God  ; and  are 
the  same  as  were  originally  delivered  by  Christ  to  His  apostles, 
and  by  them  promulgated  over  all  nations.”  This  is  simply 
the  old  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  and  to  bring  recent  Roman  dog- 
mas under  it  is  simply  to  play  fast  and  loose  with  history. 


Note  55.  See  p.  212. 

Our  Lord's  argument  from  Ps.  cx.  It  may  prevent  unnecessary 
controversy  if  I explain  — 

( 1 ) That  there  is  no  question  being  raised  as  to  the  existence 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  that  doctrine  of  a Divine  Messiah,  to 
which  our  Lord  was  recalling  the  Pharisees  : see  above,  pp.  192, 
193. 

(2)  That  no  support  is  being  given  to  the  view  which 
ascribes  the  bulk  of  the  psalms  to  the  period  after  the  Captivity, 
and  no  objection  being  raised  to  the  very  early  date  of  Ps.  cx. 

(3)  That  the  view  is  not  being  maintained  that  the  psalm  was 
written  in  David’s  name  by  a later  poet  — a view  to  which  the 
phrase  in  Mark  xii.  37,  ‘‘David  himself,”  would  be  an  objection. 

(1)  That  it  is  not  denied  that  to  ascribe  the  psalm  to  David 


NOTES  54-56. 


28& 


is  the  most  obvious  conclusion  from  our  Lord^s  words.  But  the 
most  obvious  conclusion  from  our  Lord’s  words  is  not  always 
the  truest.  Our  Lord  does  not  teach  in  such  a way  as  best  to 
save  us  trouble : see  above,  pp.  194-5.  In  particular  the  most 
obvious  interpretation  of  Mark  x.  18  — that  which  makes  our 
Lord  repudiate  identity  in  moral  goodness  with  God  — is  not 
the  truest.  Single  passages  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony 
with  the  whole. 

(5)  That  if  I am  challenged  to  show  why  the  principle  of 
interpretation  here  admitted  might  not  be  used  to  “explain 
away”  any  part  of  our  Lord’s  teaching,  I should  reply:  (a)  a 
question,  such  as  our  Lord  is  here  asking,  can  never  be  treated 
as  if  it  were  on  a level  with  a positive  statement ; (p)  the  drift 
of  the  question,  here  as  in  Mark  x.  18,  contains  within  itself  the 
warning  against  converting  it  into  a positive  proposition.  For 
the  positive  proposition  (of  which  opponents  of  the  Gospels 
have  availed  themselves)  would  be,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  the 
Son  of  David. 


LECTUEE  VIII. 

Note  56.  See  p.  220. 

“ The  spirit  ” and  the  “ letter'"  Language  is  constantly  used 
which  would  imply  that  by  “ the  letter  ” St.  Paul  means  what 
is  exact  or  “literal,”  and  by  “the  spirit”  what  is  indefinite  or 
metaphorical.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  St.  Paul  means  by 
“ the  letter  ” what  is  merely  external,  whether  the  moral  enact- 
ment (2  Cor.  hi.  6)  or  the  ritual  ordinance  (Eom.  ii.  29).  With 
“ the  spirit  ” he  always  associates  the  idea  of  vital  and  divine 
power.  The  contrast  therefore  of  “ spirit  ” to  “ letter  ” is  that 
of  communicated  power  to  mere  powerless  information  (2  Cor. 
hi.  6)  or  of  true  divine  life  to  mere  ritual  conformity  (Eom.  ii. 
29).  In  fact  whatever  is  filled  with  the  life  of  God  or  mani- 
fests His  action,  is  spiritual,  be  it  never  so  material  (see  1 Cor. 
X.  3,  4).  Nor  is  there  any  connection  between  the  spiritual,  as 
St.  Paul  uses  the  word,  and  the  metaphorical. 


290  THE  INCAKNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 

Note  57.  See  p.  231. 

Excommunication,  It  is  inseparable  from  the  idea  of  a 
€hurch’s  healthy  action  that  she  should  be  exercising  ‘‘the 
power  of  the  keys/'  the  power  of  including  and  excluding,  by 
formal  and  free  discipline,  doctrinal  and  moral.  That  this 
power  needs  to  be  exercised  with  consideration  and  liberality  is 
of  course  true  : it  is  also  true  that  due  checks  upon  its  exercise 
need  to  be  provided,  because  like  every  other  power  it  may  be 
misused.  But  its  liability  to  misuse  is  no  excuse  for  a church- 
man acquiescing  in  its  practical  disuse. 

Note  58.  See  p.  236. 

The  nexo  hirth.  This  doctrine  is  expressed  most  explicitly  in 
St.  John's  Gospel  iii.  3-13  (cf.  i.  13)  and  in  his  first  Epistle, 
in.  9,  V.  1,  4,  18.  But  it  is  expressed  also  by  St.  Paul,  Tit.  iii. 
9,  and  interpreted  by  all  his  teaching  as  to  the  bestowal  of 
the  Spirit  on  Christians.  It  is  found  also  in  St.  James  (i.  18) 
and  in  St.  Peter  (1  Pet.  i.  3,  23 ; cf.  2 Pet.  i.  4). 

Note  59.  See  p.  236. 

The  spirit  conveying  to  us  the  life  of  Christ.  Cf.  the  Rev.  H. 
C.  G.  Moule,  Principal  of  Ridley  Hall,  Veni  Creator  (Hodder  & 
Stoughton,  1890),  pp.  39  f. : — 

“ The  Spirit,  as  our  Communion  creed  confesses,  is  the  Life- 
giver,  the  Maker-alive  (to  ZcuoTrotov).  But  what  is  the  life 
which  He  gives,  with  which  He  works  ? I listen,  and  I hear 
another  voice,  which  is  yet  as  if  also  His,  and  it  says,  “ I am  the 
Life."  “The  Life  eternal  is  in  the  Son."  “He  that  hath  the 
Son  hath  the  Life."  I read  these  words  in  the  light  of  what 
we  have  recollected  now  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  on  and  in 
the  Holy  Son  of  Man : and  I thus  see  in  them  a remembrance 
that  what  the  Spirit  does  in  His  free  and  all-powerful  work  in 
the  soul  which  He  quickens  into  second  life  is,  above  all  things, 


NOTES  67-59. 


291 


to  bring  it  into  contact  with  the  Son.  He  roots  it,  He  grafts 
it,  He  embodies  it  into  the  Son.  He  deals  so  with  it  that  there 
is  a continuity  wholly  spiritual  indeed  but  none  the  less  most 
real,  unfigurative,  and  efficacious,  between  the  Head  and  the 
limb,  between  the  branch  and  the  Root.  He  effects  an  influx 
into  the  regenerate  man  of  the  blessed  virtues  of  the  nature  of 
the  Second  Adam,  an  infusion  of  the  exalted  life  of  Jesus  Christ, 
through  an  open  duct,  living,  and  divine,  into  the  man  who 
is  bom  again  into  Him  the  incarnate  and  glorified  Son  of 
God.” 

It  is,  I think,  worth  while  to  quote  a brilliant  statement  of 
this  doctrine  of  the  “ inward  Christ  ” from  a rare  and  little-read 
work  of  William  Law,  The  Spirit  of  Prayer  (7th  edit.  London, 
1773),  pp.  43-1. 

“ One  would  wonder  how  any  persons,  that  believe  the  great 
mystery  of  our  redemption,  who  adore  the  depths  of  the  divine 
goodness,  in  that  the  Son  of  God,  the  second  Person  in  the 
Trinity,  became  a man  Himself,  in  order  to  make  it  possible  for 
man  by  a birth  from  Him  to  enter  again  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  should  yet  seek  to,  and  contend  for,  not  a real,  but  a 
figurative  sense  of  a new  birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  Is  there  any 
thing  more  inconsistent  than  this?  Or  can  any  thing  strike 
more  directly  at  the  heart  of  the  whole  nature  of  our  redemp- 
tion ? God  -became  man,  took  upon  Him  a birth  from  fallen 
nature.  But  why  was  this  done  ? Or  wherein  lies  the  adorable 
depth  of  this  mystery  ? How  does  all  this  manifest  the  infinity 
of  the  divine  love  towards  man?  It  is  because  nothing  less 
than  this  mysterious  Incarnation  (which  astonishes  angels) 
could  open  a way,  or  begin  a possibility,  for  fallen  man  to  be 
born  again  from  above,  and  made  again  a partaker  of  the  divine 
nature.  It  was  because  man  was  become  so  dead  to  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  that  there  was  no  help  for  him  through  all 
nature.  Now  when  all  nature  stood  round  about  Adam  as 
unable  to  help  him,  as  he  was  to  help  himself,  and  all  of  them 
unable  to  help  him,  for  this  reason,  because  that  which  he  had 
lost  was  the  life  and  light  of  heaven,  how  glorious,  how  adorable 
is  that  mystery  which  enables  us  to  say,  that  when  man  lay  thus 


292  THE  INCAENATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


incapable  of  any  relief  from  all  power  and  possibilities  of  nature, 
that  then  the  Son,  the  Word  of  God,  entered  by  a birth  into 
this  fallen  nature,  that  by  this  mysterious  Incarnation  all  the 
fallen  nature  might  be  born  again  of  Him  according  to  the 
Spirit,  in  the  same  reality  as  they  were  born  of  Adam  according 
to  the  flesh ! Look  at  this  mystery  in  this  true  light,  in  this 
plain  sense  of  scripture,  and  then  you  must  be  forced  to  fall 
down  before  it,  in  adoration  of  it.  For  all  that  is  great  and 
astonishing  in  the  goodness  of  God,  all  that  is  glorious  and 
happy  with  regard  to  man,  is  manifestly  contained  in  it.  But 
tell  me,  I pray,  what  becomes  of  this,  what  is  there  left  in  any 
part  of  the  mystery,  if  this  new  birth,  for  the  sake  of  which  God 
became  man,  is  not  really  a new  birth  in  the  thing  itself,  is  not, 
as  the  Scripture  affirms,  a real  birth  of  the  Son  and  Spirit  of 
God  in  the  soul,  but  something  or  other,  this  or  that,  which  the 
critics  say,  may  be  called  a new  birth  by  a certain  figure  of 
speech  ? Is  not  this  to  give  up  all  our  redemption  at  once,  and 
a turning  all  the  mysteries  of  our  salvation  into  mere  empty 
unmeaning  terms  of  speech  ? 

“ ‘ I am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.’  Here  Christ,  our 
second  Adam,  uses  this  similitude  to  teach  us,  that  the  new 
birth  that  we  are  to  have  from  Him  is  real,  in  the  most  strict 
and  literal  sense  of  the  words,  and  that  there  is  the  same  near- 
ness of  relation  betwixt  Him  and  His  true  disciples  that  there  is 
betwixt  the  vine  and  its  branches,  that  He  does  all  that  in  us 
and  for  us  which  the  vine  does  to  its  branches.  Now  the  life 
of  the  vine  must  be  really  derived  into  the  branches,  they  cannot 
be  branches  till  the  birth  of  the  vine  is  brought  forth  in  them. 
And  therefore  as  sure  as  the  birth  of  the  vine  must  be  brought 
forth  in  the  branches,  so  sure  is  it  that  we  must  be  born  again 
of  our  second  Adam ; and  that  unless  the  life  of  the  Holy  Jesus 
be  in  us  by  a birth  from  Him,  we  are  as  dead  to  Him  and  the 
Kingdom  of  God  as  the  branch  is  dead  to  the  vine,  from  which 
it  is  broken  off. 

‘‘Again  our  Blessed  Saviour  says.  Without  Me  ye  can  do 
nothing.  This  is  the  only  sense  in  which  we  can  be  said  to  be 
without  Christ;  when  He  is  no  longer  in  us,  as  the  principle 


NOTE  59. 


293 


of  a heavenly  life,  we  are  then  without  Him,  and  so  can  do 
nothing,  that  is,  nothing  that  is  good  or  holy.  A Christ  not  in 
us,  is  the  same  thing  as  a Christ  not  ours. 

“ It  is  the  language  of  Scripture,  that  ‘ Christ  in  us  ’ is  our 
‘hope  of  glory,’  that  Christ  formed  in  us,  living,  growing,  and 
raising  His  own  life  and  spirit  in  us,  is  our  only  salvation.  And 
indeed  all  this  is  plain  from  the  nature  of  the  thing ; for  since 
the  serpent,  sin,  death,  and  hell,  are  all  essentially  within  us, 
the  very  growth  of  our  nature,  must  not  our  redemption  be 
equally  inward,  an  inward  essential  death  to  this  state  of  our 
souls,  and  an  inward  growth  of  a contrary  life  within  us  ? If 
Adam  was  only  an  outward  person,  if  his  whole  nature  was  not 
our  nature,  born  in  us,  and  derived  from  him  into  us,  it  would 
be  nonsense  to  say  that  his  fall  is  our  fall.  So,  in  like  manner, 
if  Christ,  our  second  Adam,  was  only  an  outward  person,  if  He 
entered  not  as  deeply  into  our  nature  as  the  first  Adam  does,  if 
we  have  not  as  really  from  Him  a new  inward  spiritual  man,  as 
we  have  outward  flesh  and  blood  from  Adam,  what  ground 
could  there  be  to  say  that  our  righteousness  is  from  Him,  as 
our  sin  is  from  Adam  ? 

“ Let  no  one  here  think  to  charge  me  with  disregard  to  the 
Holy  Jesus,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  with  setting 
up  an  inward  saviour  in  opposition  to  that  outward  Christ, 
whose  history  is  recorded  in  the  Gospel.  No : it  is  with  the 
utmost  fulness  of  faith  and  assurance,  that  I ascribe  all  our 
redemption  to  that  blessed  and  mysterious  Person  that  was  then 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  will  assert  no  inward  redemption, 
but  what  wholly  proceeds  from  and  is  effected  by  that  life-giv- 
ing Redeemer,  who  died  on  the  cross  for  our  redemption. 

“Was  I to  say,  that  a plant  or  vegetable  must  have  the  life, 
light,  and  virtues  of  the  sun  incorporated  in  it,  that  it  has  no 
benefit  from  the  sun,  till  the  sun  is  thus  inwardly  forming, 
generating,  quickening,  and  raising  up  a life  of  the  sun’s  virtues 
in  it,  would  this  be  setting  up  an  inward  sun  in  opposition  to 
the  outward  one?  Could  any  thing  be  more  ridiculous  than 
such  a charge  ? For  is  not  all  that  is  here  said  of  an  inward 
sun  in  the  vegetable,  so  much  said  of  power  and  virtue  derived 


294  THE  INCARNATION  OF  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


from  the  sun  in  the  firmament?  So,  in  like  manner,  all  that  is 
said  of  an  inward  Christ,  inwardly  formed,  and  generated  in 
the  root  of  the  soul,  is  only  so  much  said  of  an  inward  life, 
brought  forth  by  the  power  and  efficacy  of  that  blessed  Christ 
that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.” 


Note  60.  See  p.  242. 

The  glorified  Christ  “ quickening  spirit,"^  cf.  app.  note  32,  p.  279. 
The  phrase  is  applied  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Christ  in  His  entire 
person  (1  Cor.  xv.  45),  when  he  is  emphasizing  the  permanence 
of  His  humanity,  in  body  and  spirit.  Adam  became  a living 
soul  at  his  creation : Christ  became  life-giving  spirit  at  His  res- 
urrection. It  is  natural  to  connect  these  words  (jrvevpa  ^too- 
iroiovv)  with  those  of  our  Lord,  as  recorded  by  St.  John  vi.  63 
(TTvevpa  Kal  ^onq),  and  to  interpret  our  Lord’s  words  thus  : “ The 
things  that  I have  been  speaking  to  you  of  (ra  pg/uLara  a cyw 
XeXdXrjKa  vplv),  that  is,  My  flesh  and  blood,  the  flesh  and  blood 
of  My  ascended  manhood  (see  ver.  62),  are  not  to  be  mere  flesh, 
are  not  to  be  what  you  understand  by  flesh  at  all,  but  are  to  be 
spirit  and  life.”  There  is  I think  no  doubt  that  pripara  XaXelv 
could  mean  “to  speak  about  things  ”:  cf.  St.  Luke  ii.  15-17 ; 
there  pgpa  means  in  one  case  the  word  uttered,  and  in  the  other 
case  the  thing  effected;  and  for  XaXeiv  cf.  St.  John  iii.  11. 
This  interpretation  is  in  harmony  with  that  of  St.  Cyril  and  of 
St.  Augustine  in  loc. 


Note  61.  See  p.  247. 

The  connection  of  grace  with  sacraments.  We  cannot  avoid 
asking  the  question:  In  what  relation  to  this  grace  do  those 
stand  who  are  outside  the  action  of  the  sacraments  ? The  an- 
swer to  this  question,  so  far  as  we  can  give  it,  lies  in  the  recog- 
nition that,  according  to  the  old  saying,  ‘‘  God  is  not  tied  to  His 
sacraments.”  While,  on  the  one  hand,  we  have  no  right  to 
expect  His  grace  if  we  neglect  the  appointed  means  for  its 
bestowal,  on  the  other  hand  we  have  no  right  to  limit  His  power 


NOTES  59-61. 


295 


to  bestow  where  He  sees  moral  worthiness  in  this  life  or  beyond 
it.  It  will  strike  many  as  surprising  that  the  great  Jesuit  writer 
De  Lugo  should  recognize,  as  fully  as  he  does,  Christ's  relation 
in  grace  to  all  men ; see  De  MysL  Incarn,  disp.  xvii.  § 4.  He 
is,  he  says,  the  head  of  all  men,  by  a certain  “ influxus  ” : “ in- 
fluit  in  infideles  per  vocationes  ad  Mem  et  ad  alia  pia  opera.” 
Thus  “ infideles  ” are  in  a certain  sense  members  of  Christ,  i.  e. 
‘‘  cum  voluntarie  cooperantur  cogitationi  datae  per  Christum  ad 
aliquam  honestam  operationern.” 


